From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 01:14:02 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:14:02 -0000 Subject: Can Ghosts Drink? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47498 A question that occurred to me after watching the CoS movie (this is a canon-based question, I promise): Can ghosts drink? We know that Nearly Headless Nick tells Ron and Harry that he hasn't eaten in over 400 years in PS/SS, and all of the food at the Deathday party in CoS is rotten so that the ghosts can smell it as they pass through. But they can't *eat* it. So can they drink? Because wouldn't Nearly Headless Nick have had to drink the Mandrake draught in order to be un-petrified? It seems to me that if ghosts can't eat, they shouldn't be able to drink, either. But then how was Nearly Headless Nick restored? ~Phyllis From orlaquirke2002 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 00:31:03 2002 From: orlaquirke2002 at yahoo.com (Anna Hemmant) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:31:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's thoughts on Sirius' guilt (was Harry's Vault Key) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47499 I know it's an old and tired theory, but I do believe in my heart of hearts that Dumbledore was a relative of either Lilly or James. If this was the case, then he would possibly receive all of their possesions as a result of their death, along with the key to their bank vault. And before people start mentioning the reference to Harry not having any other family, you have to remember that Dumbledore is a very old man, and that, along with the fact that he resides in the magical world and couldn't possibly take time out from it without being missed since he's such a prominent figure, that he may have concluded that, despite their unpleasantness, the Dursleys were far more suitable to bring up Harry. And as for Dumbledore's opinion on Sirius' guilt, he is an exceptionally wise man, and since he saw what was happening to Tom Riddle when no-one else did, perhaps he saw it in Pettigrew as well. He may have always believed in Siruis' innocence, but could not do anything about it since the burden of proof was not on Sirius' side. The only people who knew who was the real secret keeper were James, Lilly, Peter and Sirius, two of whom were dead, and another who found it easy to allow Sirius to be framed. No-one would have ever believed Sirius was innocent. Orla From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Dec 1 01:27:18 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:27:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Ghosts Drink? References: Message-ID: <3DE96576.2C6350F1@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47500 erisedstraeh2002 wrote: > > A question that occurred to me after watching the CoS movie (this is > a canon-based question, I promise): Can ghosts drink? We know that > Nearly Headless Nick tells Ron and Harry that he hasn't eaten in over > 400 years in PS/SS, and all of the food at the Deathday party in CoS > is rotten so that the ghosts can smell it as they pass through. But > they can't *eat* it. So can they drink? Because wouldn't Nearly > Headless Nick have had to drink the Mandrake draught in order to be > un-petrified? > > It seems to me that if ghosts can't eat, they shouldn't be able to > drink, either. But then how was Nearly Headless Nick restored? > > ~Phyllis Maybe his condition wore off in time, as he could not be killed, being already dead, maybe he is not material enough to remain petrified for more then a few months. Or maybe one could take a plant sprayer and mist him with the potion? Maybe there's a spell to make something non-living 'ghosted', so that ghosts can get new clothes or ghost items? How would, in fact, ANY petrified person drink? Living or ghost? Possibly the potion is applied externally? Jazmyn From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 01:34:29 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:34:29 -0000 Subject: Can Ghosts Drink? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47501 Phyllis wisely asked: > Because wouldn't Nearly > Headless Nick have had to drink the Mandrake draught in order to be > un-petrified? > > It seems to me that if ghosts can't eat, they shouldn't be able to > drink, either. But then how was Nearly Headless Nick restored? There was no punch on the Deathday party table, so it seems if they could drink, then *that* would of been at the party. Well, McGonagall could conjure up a fan to move him, so maybe Madam Pomfrey could mist it on him. Or even steam a vapour that could carry the droplets down his ghost throat. Given that he is a spirit, how was it that he was petrified in the first place? Did it more freeze the image on him? If a fan could move him, then he is somehow kind of solid? Sorry, I posed more questions than I answered. Melody From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Sun Dec 1 01:40:20 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:40:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Ghosts Drink? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47502 In a message dated 11/30/02 8:15:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com writes: > A question that occurred to me after watching the CoS movie (this is > a canon-based question, I promise): Can ghosts drink? We know that > Nearly Headless Nick tells Ron and Harry that he hasn't eaten in over > 400 years in PS/SS, and all of the food at the Deathday party in CoS > is rotten so that the ghosts can smell it as they pass through. But > they can't *eat* it. So can they drink? Because wouldn't Nearly > Headless Nick have had to drink the Mandrake draught in order to be > un-petrified? > > It seems to me that if ghosts can't eat, they shouldn't be able to > drink, either. But then how was Nearly Headless Nick restored? > > ~Phyllis When *I* asked this question (which is a rather good one I think) I think the best suggestion was that they heated it and the steam went up through Nearly Headless Nick (I can't remember who said it - sorry!) Jazmyn then wrote: >>How would, in fact, ANY petrified person drink? Living or ghost? >>Possibly the potion is applied externally? I think that since most of them were frozen with their mouths open (*if* TMTSNBN2 is correct) that the Mandrake potion would be poured down their throats. I think TMTSNBN2 is correct in that assumption (that their mouths were open) because if I saw something like that, I'd scream. If I just imagined that and it wasn't in the movie, then it would make sense that their mouths be open. ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ (Who drank *way* too much coffee today!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Dec 1 02:24:31 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:24:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Ghosts Drink? References: Message-ID: <3DE972DF.EDD13DFB@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47503 SnapesSlytherin at aol.com wrote: > > I think that since most of them were frozen with their mouths open > (*if* > TMTSNBN2 is correct) that the Mandrake potion would be poured down > their > throats. I think TMTSNBN2 is correct in that assumption (that their > mouths > were open) because if I saw something like that, I'd scream. If I > just > imagined that and it wasn't in the movie, then it would make sense > that their > mouths be open. > > ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ > (Who drank *way* too much coffee today!) > (hands you some Decaf) Problem is, you can pour it down their throat all you want, but they cannot swallow. Its like, great, you drowned the poor guy.. Least he doesn't have to worry about being petrified anymore, but now he's dead instead.. No, if they are petrified, there's no way they can swallow anything, even if their mouths are open.. There ARE other ways of administering the potion, such as an enema or injecting into the stomach, but I seriously doubt that Rowling would want to bore us with the details if they DID use enemas. (note the large intestine absorbs drugs and such faster then even the stomach, which makes it a good way to get a drug (or potion) into someone's system fast.) This wouldn't work on ghosts very well, but there is likely some way to do it that the books may never explain.. Jazmyn From indigo at indigosky.net Sun Dec 1 02:39:46 2002 From: indigo at indigosky.net (Indigo) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 02:39:46 -0000 Subject: Can Ghosts Drink? In-Reply-To: <3DE972DF.EDD13DFB@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47504 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., jazmyn wrote: > > > SnapesSlytherin at a... wrote: > > > > I think that since most of them were frozen with their mouths open > > (*if* > > TMTSNBN2 is correct) that the Mandrake potion would be poured down > > their > > throats. I think TMTSNBN2 is correct in that assumption (that their > > mouths > > were open) because if I saw something like that, I'd scream. If I > > just > > imagined that and it wasn't in the movie, then it would make sense > > that their > > mouths be open. > > > > ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ > > (Who drank *way* too much coffee today!) > > > > (hands you some Decaf) > > Problem is, you can pour it down their throat all you want, but they > cannot swallow. Its like, great, you drowned the poor guy.. Least he > doesn't have to worry about being petrified anymore, but now he's dead > instead.. No, if they are petrified, there's no way they can swallow > anything, even if their mouths are open. Actually, one can administer liquid to the unconscious, who also cannot swallow, by massaging their throats. They don't drown, because the valve that allows air down the throat is flipped over to "allow swallowing" instead of "allow breathing." Petrified people aren't breathing. And then there's the hospital method of putting the tube down the throat past the valve in question, which'd bypass the swallowing reflex altogether. [snip] As for Nick? I think a petrified ghost is semi-solid, like a very thick fog. So you could just drizzle the mandrake stuff down and it'd trickle through slowly like dropping milk into water. --Indigo From editor at texas.net Sun Dec 1 02:41:30 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:41:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Ghosts Drink? References: <3DE972DF.EDD13DFB@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <003101c298e3$286e2360$5a05a6d8@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47505 Jazmyn said, in regard to how the potion was administered to the basilisk's victims: > No, if they are petrified, there's no way they can swallow > anything, even if their mouths are open.. Nobody ever said they have to swallow it, that I can recall... > There ARE other ways of > administering the potion, such as an enema or injecting into the > stomach, but I seriously doubt that Rowling would want to bore us with > the details if they DID use enemas. Especially since they would have had to use a drill for either option, given that the victims were, as you note, petrified. > (note the large intestine absorbs > drugs and such faster then even the stomach, which makes it a good way > to get a drug (or potion) into someone's system fast.) Unless the large intestine, like the rest of the person, is stone. Or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Point is, not absorbing. System not working. General system failure. Nothing circulating or moving. > This wouldn't > work on ghosts very well, but there is likely some way to do it that the > books may never explain.. Don't assume all potions are to be ingested. Folklore is rife with magic potions that are applied topically. And even if it is poured into the mouth, it's *magic* and if that's the way it's given, physiology has little to do with it. Snow White's apple never made it into her system, it wasn't that she ingested the poison--it was just within the confines of her mouth (caught in her throat, I believe it was). Just like the poison comb in her hair, which apparently did not really "poison" her in our sense of the word, since she awoke the moment it was removed. [if this sounds strange, I'm talking an older, non-Disney version.] Point is, it was *magic.* As for Nick, I sort of assumed that they misted him. He did not go solid, he had to be wafted up to the hospital wing, so a mist would have a good penetration and chance of working. ~Amanda From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Sun Dec 1 03:24:42 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 03:24:42 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47506 I'm of the opinion that the Malfoys are rich. The evidence is: 1) They own Malfoy Manor (not conclusive, because they could be "house rich but cash poor," as we say here in the States) 2) They had a elf (also not conclusive, as elves are not paid and may be inherited) 3) Lucius bought a bunch of Nimbus 2001s for the Slytherin Quidditch Team. It was argued here that perhaps Lucius had some connection that allowed him to get brooms for free. I don't think so, because in CoS, Lucius tells Draco that he will *buy* him a racing broom. 4) Lucius gives generous donations to Wizard charities. This is mentioned by Fudge in both the "Parting of the Ways" chapter, and at the QWC, where Fudge says Lucius gave a "*very* generous donation to St. Mungo's" (emphasis in original.) Also, I'd assume that a position as Governor at Hogwarts, which Lucius had until being kicked out, would be in response to making donations. At least, that's how it usually works at real private schools in the US. 5) Both Draco and Lucius repeatedly ridicule the Weasleys' poverty -- Lucius does this at Flourish & Blotts, and at the QWC. 6) It sounds like Draco is well-dressed 7) Although Lucius is selling when he talks to Mr. Borgin, the way Mr. Borgin treats him implies that he has been a good customer in the past. So, I'd say the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the Malfoys are rich. Perhaps they were *more* rich in the past, and feel threatened now, but they still have money. -- Judy From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sun Dec 1 04:27:45 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 04:27:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Boggart class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47507 Wanda wrote: "I was rereading PoA, enjoying the many Snapey scenes in it, and came to the Chapter 7 scene where Lupin is about to teach the students how to fight the Boggart in the wardrobe in the staffroom. I like the way the scene was set, first of all - the room is empty, except for Snape. I wonder, first of all, what he's doing there, all alone - reading? Thinking? We seldom "intrude" upon Snape, and it's interesting that the one time we do, we don't really know what to make of him. How do people interpret his remark to Lupin, as he prepares to leave: "I'd rather not witness this"? Is he just being sarcastic, saying that he expects the students' efforts to be a bit of a fiasco? (It didn't happen - they all did pretty well.) Or is he suspecting something like what actually happens - he's going to figure in the lesson, as he's bound to be someone's greatest fear? Is he leaving in order to save face, or is he, in his own way, getting out of the way so he won't inhibit the lesson? Naturally, being Snape, he can't resist a parting shot at Neville and Hermione. I'd be interested in hearing other people's views on this." I have put off responding to this because I was looking at other people's theories and assesing my own. Well, here it is: My first reading of this passage was that Snape simply had a free period and was spending it in the staff room. Especailly since, later, he apparently has the free period to TEACH Lupin's class. I don't have my books with me because I'm home, and books are at school, but the book doesn't mention him leaving with anything in his hands, IIRC, such as parchments, books, fluffy white kitten, favorite dolly named Patience with the curls. It also doesn't mention him doing anything but sitting. Perhaps he's just thinking. As for why he left, I believe that maybe he forgot that Lupin was going to take his Third Years in there (though how could he, what with the rattling of the Boggart? He didn't get rid of it, so he most have known he was supposed to leave it there), and when he saw that Lupin was there, he left because he hates Lupin, 'scuse me, has strong feelings of dislike towards Lupin, and didn't want to watch him teach. That, and maybe he realized that Lupin's teaching methods would result in him being liked mych better than Snape, and Snape didn't want to witness all the students thinking Lupin was cool, and then turning around and hating Snape all the more. Hey, the man's not a STONE, I'm sure he has feelings...somewheres...deep, deep down inside...really, really deep down... -Acire, who didn't check her e-mail for two days and figured the fastest way to catch up was to keep everything with the word 'Snape' in it. From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 04:26:29 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 04:26:29 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Money---A Thought In-Reply-To: <02aa01c296a2$09ed2500$35570043@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47508 "Eric Oppen" wrote: > This is something that just occured to me. > > How do we _know_ that the Malfoys have gobs and gobs o'money? > Owning Malfoy Manor doesn't mean much---many very old families had/have > ancestral estates that are "entailed," meaning they can't be sold out of the > family by wastrel descendants. True, but there is still plenty of evidence that a lot of what they have is new. CoS, Ch3: (p.29-30 US paperback ed) "Harry was silent. Judging by the fact that Draco Malfoy usually had the best of everything, his family was rolling in wizard gold, he could just see Malfoy strutting around a large manor house." That's canon enough for me. Harry's PoV, maybe, but still... Also, the Malfoys are constantly looking down on the Weasleys because of their poverty. CoS Chapter 7 (US ed again) p.111-112 "Aren't you Lucius Malfoy's son?" said Fred, looking at Malfoy with dislike. "Funny you should mention Draco's father," said Flint as the whole Slytherin team smiled still more broadly. "Let me show you the *generous gift* he's made to the Slytherin team" [emphasis mine] All seven of them held out their broomsticks. Seven highly polished, brand-new handles and seven sets of fine gold lettering spelling out the words "Nimbus Two Thousand and One" gleamed under the Gryffindors' noses in the early morning sun." "At least no one on the Gryffindor team had to *buy* their way in," said Hermione sharply. "*They* got in on pure talent." [emphasis original] The smug look on Malfoy's face flickered. "No one asked your opinion, you filthy little Mudblood," he spat. I highly doubt the Malfoys own a broom factory and got the brooms at a reduced price. That seems a little far-fetched. Malfoy's reaction suggests that he's used to getting his way because of his money, and he's not used to having anyone belittle him because of it. > This gives us a reason why they'd follow Voldemort---if Lord V. promised > Lucius a return to Those Thrilling Days Of Yesteryear, and to restore the > Malfoy fortune to what it was in those times, a Lucius Malfoy who had been > brooding about his family's (relative) fall from fortune might well listen. I personally think that Lucius was/is a DE simply because he's a DE kind of guy. He's just a vicious, foul little brat. I'm also not sure how Voldemort could promise anyone money for anything, all the DEs seem to do is kill and torture and torment...none of that gets you any money. To me, the Malfoys seem like rich, vicious brats who are used to get their way all the time- and money usually helps them along. -Laura From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Sun Dec 1 04:54:26 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 04:54:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: <71E4EEDA.47476BF3.022D3A68@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47509 Audra said: >>>>I propose that Sirius was suffering from the effects sensory deprivation and solitary confinement from his time in Azkaban.... Some possible effects of sensory deprivation and solitary confinement (which I will refer to now as SD and SC for brevity's sake) that mimic PTSD are: vivid fantasies, hyper-responsivity to external stimuli, free-floating anxiety, and extreme motor restlessness. Other possible effects of SD and SC include doubt of oneself and troubles in determining what is real, problems with controlling impulses (sometimes with random violence), and emergence of primitive aggressive fantasies.<<<< Well, the symptoms certainly fit some of Sirius' behaviors in PoA. The problem I see, however, is the timing. While Sirius probably *was* sensory-deprived in Azkaban, he had been out of Azkaban for about 10 months by the time of the Shrieking Shack scene. He certainly wasn't deprived of sensory stimulation or opportunity to exercise while on the run. (A line from a John Denver song is now floating through my head: "You fill up my senses like a night in a forest.") Yes, he was presumably still deprived of *human* contact (unless he was having people pet him as a lovable stray), but the symptoms listed above sound like they are caused by lack of sensory stimulation and being confined without exercise. I would expect things like hyper-responsiveness to dissipate within days of exposure to normal stimuli, similar to the way newly exposed skin on one's fingertip is sensitive for just a day or two after cutting one's nail very short. There is also still the question of why the symptoms would resolve by GoF, if they did in fact persist for the whole year of PoA. I still think that if one wants an explanation for Sirius' behavior (I mean, an explanation other than the obvious one that he just has a really nasty temper), the best possibility is some sort of as-yet-undefined syndrome caused by dementor exposure. Hey, the dementors were still hanging around throughout PoA, so that's a convenient explanation of why the symptoms persisted all year and yet were suddenly gone a couple of months later! (Not that I subscribe to this theory, myself.) In the same post, Audra mentioned Sirius' slashing the Fat Lady, and said: >>> Slashing the portrait -- This was an aggressive reaction, but I would like to point out that the portrait was only an object, and I consider it to be the equivalent of breaking down a door.<<< Audra later said, in response to Shane's claim that the Fat Lady seems embarrassed: >>> The characters in the paintings do appear to carry out many complex behaviors, but we do not have proof that they experience emotions and thoughts in the same way we do....a computer-simulation that is made to look like a person could be programmed to reproduce actions that mimic embarrassment and shame, or even fear and pain, in response to certain input, but am I actually committing mass homicide when blow the arms, legs, and heads off fleeing computer-simulated people while playing Vice City on my PS2?<<< What could possibly constitute proof of emotion? We are encountering a problem much discussed in philosophy, the "problem of other minds." Since emotions and thoughts are private, there is no way to prove that *anyone* else has them, even other humans. Suppose Lucius Malfoy claimed that it is the soul that enables one to perform magic, and that therefore muggles' lack of magical ability means that they are simply automatons that seem to have feelings but really don't. There would be no way to prove him wrong. The Fat Lady would certainly pass the famous Turing test of intelligence. However, the Turing test only proves *sentience* (thoughts and feelings) if one assumes that intelligence is impossible without sentience. So, that's not much help. Whether magic paintings are sentient has been debated here before. Certainly, JKR doesn't make it clear. However, the paintings certainly show far more intelligence than do the pictures in a video game. Figures from the paintings move around from picture to picture, visiting each other and even having parties. I'd say that the books strongly imply that at least some of the paintings, including the Fat Lady, have emotions. For example, Violet, from a painting in the anteroom off the Great Hall, is described as being indignant, and the Fat Lady tries to soothe her. (GoF, ch. 17.) The strongest evidence that the paintings are sentient, though, is what happens *after* Sirius slashes the Fat Lady. Most of the other paintings refuse to take on her job, which implies that they have free will. Sir Cadogan takes the job, but acts unpredictably, letting Sirius back in. The staff of Hogwarts then enter into negotiations with the Fat Lady, persuading her to return by offering guards for her. They don't just change the spell on the painting, or reprogram her. These interactions strongly imply that the paintings are inhabited by beings who act independantly and can make decisions. Kiricat asked: >> if the portraits are lving beings, isn't it somewhat creepy that they must live their "lives" confined to the world of canvas and frames? Maybe after Hermione frees the house elves, she can free the portrait people.<< The portraits seems to be inhabiting something of a parallel universe that connects all the paintings and is quite extensive. Sir Cadogan rides around on horseback, various portrait people visit each other, etc. They don't really seemed to be trapped. Perhaps the portraits are just their homes, and that's why they spend so much time there. By the way, even if Sirius had been *told* the Fat Lady had no feelings, it would still take a certain lack of empathy to attack someone who exhibited a full range of emotional behaviors and *seemed* to be suffering as a result of your actions. And, making it worse is that Sirius knows the Fat Lady; he would have had daily interactions with her when he was a student, because she guarded the Gryffindor door since at least Molly and Arthur's time at Hogwarts. (This is assuming that Sirius is a Gryffindor -- I can't remember if canon actually says he is.) -- Judy Serenity From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 05:01:12 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:01:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Revisitng The Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021201050112.94285.qmail@web20810.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47510 All this talk about the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, made me think that the office that manages it must not be able to enforce it while there are adult wizards around. They couldn't tell the difference between Harry's magic and Dobby's. I think that they just trust the wizard parents to police their own childern, and any magic that happened in Muggle homes must be done by the students because who else could of done it. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 1 05:50:55 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 05:50:55 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Money---A Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47511 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura" wrote: > > I'm also not sure how Voldemort could promise anyone money for > anything, all the DEs seem to do is kill and torture and torment > ...none of that gets you any money. For the original question, I believe that the Malfoys are plenty rich and 'the Good Old Days' to which they want to return was not a matter of having even more money, but of having people jump when they said 'Frog' *without* having to pay the people to do so ... I imagine that in the Good Old Days, people obeyed the nearest Malfoy simply out of fear of being tortured and killed... But I am sure that money was one of the many different things that attracted different people to join Voldemort. I can think of several ways that Death Eating could get a person money. One simple enough for even Crabbe and Goyle to understand: when you AK a rich person and hiser family, LOOT the house before burning it. Only slightly more complicated: send notes (signed by the Dark Mark) threatening to kill the recipient and family unless heesh pays up. After a few such notes were followed by the Dark Mark-ed death of the recipient who didn't pay up and no one catching the murderers, people would take those notes seriously. Use powerful (Dark?) magic provided by Voldemort to break into (and out of!) Gringott's vaults, to rob them, like Quirrel did... Gringotts would have an interest in hushing it up, maybe even an interest in *paying* Voldemort not to rob them... Get a job, and then a raise and a promotion, either by favoritism from a DE boss to a DE applicant/subordinate, or by arranging for an anonymous Dark Mark letter to threaten the boss unless you get taken care of, or by someone Imperius'ing the boss ... If some employers, such as the Ministry, have some kind of civil-service-like exam, DEs already employed with access to the test results could change them, either by magic or the normal way... Use either Imperius or threats to get one rich person to marry you, and another to sell you hiser property at a very cheap price... If you owned, for example, a broomstick factory, you could use DEs and the Dark Mark to destroy competing broomstick factories. Then you could raise your prices, as people wouldn't have a cheaper alternative. I feel embarrassed that those are all the ways to get rich by Death Eating that I can think of. In another piece of limited imagination, I haven't been able to figure out HOW a person uses *Transfiguration* for a job. Any ideas? From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 04:47:57 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 04:47:57 -0000 Subject: Some Questions = Theories Wanted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47512 Let's see...I'll try to not mention the excellent points everyone else has already made....but this was a great post, very intriguing questions. "evenflow200214" wrote: > 1) How would Ron have explained to the rest of the Weasley's about the disappearence of Scabbers and aquiring Pig? We can see that they do not know that Sirius is innocent in GoF and Ron supposedly has no money... How would he explain Pig? > Well, I can't avoid it here, someone else already explained it away for me. My opinion would be that everyone already thought he had been eaten by Crookshanks...so unless Ron decided to say "oh, by the way Mum, that night I was dragged into Hogsmeade by a dog who turned out to be a convincted criminal and followed by a werewolf, I found out that my pet rat wasn't actually wasn't dead, would you believe he was a DE who was responsible for the deaths of my best friend's parents?" there really wouldn't be too much to explain. =) And Pig could very well be a present form Harry or Hermione. > 2)The Weasley's have a clock that tells each of them where each member of the family is, home, work etc... Why then, during Why doesn't the clock tell the Weasely's that they are in "mortal danger"? > My best guess would simply be that they weren't paying attention. I also particularly like the idea that the Fred/George duo either broke the "mortal peril" function of the clock or set it off so many times that no one cares anymore. =) > 3) Where is the proof that Crouch attacked the Longbottoms? Sorry to reiterate it but it has not been proven that he is guilty...> Sorry, can't help out here...my memory fails me, I don't remember the exact details of the plot development. Of course, it's *entirely* possible that his innocence/guilt has nothing to do with the plot. But that's no fun. =) >4) How was Sirius allowed a flying motorbike and why did Dumbledore not react at Privet Drive? As far as he knows, Sirius is responsible yet he lets what Hagrid says about Sirius giving him the motorbike go over his head and doesn't even stop Hagrid when he says he wants to take the bike back to Sirius? Is this Dumbledore being lacklustre or something else?> Now this interesting. Perhaps certain laws regarding Muggle objects were not in effect then? Or maybe, like Arthur Weasley, Sirius enchanted the motorcycle "without the intention of flying it" and used it in this instance, seeing it as an emergancy. This seems highly unlikely, however. Why would Sirius have a Muggle objet like a motorcycle and the intent to enchant it to fly? (theory, anyone? ::wink::) My best guess would be that there were no laws against it at the time. Of course, that is pure speculation. As for Dumbledore...firstly, I'm relatively certain that the Muggle murders had not been committed yet. However, IIRC, only Lily, James, Sirius, and Peter knew that Sirius was NOT the Potter's Secret- Keeper. So when the Potters were attacked, Dumbledore would have thought that Sirius had betrayed them. Or did Dumbledore know about the switch? > 5) How did Sirius know where to find Peter after the Potter's deaths? He seems to track him down a little too easily... Did Peter plan that Sirius find him in that particular street? And was it part of his and Voldemort's original plan, to pretend to blow himself up, thus framing Sirius for three murders?> My best guess would be that they found each other because they had been such close friends. I don't know if Peter planned to meet Sirius in a specific spot, but I do believe he had his escape planned. We know from canon that Peter was not very bright, so I find it doubtful that he would come up with the clever "cutting-off- the-finger-and-transforming" scheme on the spot. I doubt this was part of Voldemort's plan, why would he care about Sirius? Besides, the DEs control people through fear, they'd *want* to take credit for 12 murders in broad daylight. This seems to me just a case of a good-for-nothing-only-looking-out-for-himself *rat* saving his own *tail*. >6) How do the Paintings exist? Were they people who chose to become paintings? Are the in the control of the artist that drew them?> Perhaps the paints used in them work in a similar manner of the potion that magical photographs are developed in. I have a hunch (based *kinda* on canon) that magical photographs, if not paintings, capture a person's mood at the time the picture was taken. For example, the photo album of Harry's parents show them smiling and waving, and Sirius is shown laughing and having fun. However, we do know that Sirius has something of a short temper and a rough, somewhat ill-natured side (i.e. luring Snape into the path of Lupin). My best evidence for this theory is in CoS, when Colin takes the photograph of Lockhart and Harry - Harry notices that his "photo self" was trying very hard by to resist being pulled into the picture by Lockhart. Surely this shows his mood at the time (embarrassment, annoyance at Lockhart's interference) and not his normal, friendly nature. >7) Will Harry and Cho get together, in your opinions?> Nope. Not anytime soon, anyway. Someone else mentioned that he was Harry's first crush. First crushes don't mean much. Besides, the poor girl's boyfriend was just killed by the darkest wizard of all time. Talk about rebound, I don't think she's looking for someone new just yet, or will be for awhile. I do have a hunch that she'll become more central to the plot, perhaps because of the Cedric connection. >8) Why did Snape leave Voldemort and join him in the first place, in your opinions?> Snape is a very Slytherin-like character. He's nasty and vicious and determined, I think he was lured into the DE circle because of these characteristics. As for why he left...I'd say it would have to be something BIG. Not just "oh, he suddenly realized that the DE's were evil." I'm leaning towards a personal conflict with Voldemort. And don't forget, there has to be something that happens that gains him Dumbledore's trust, and I doubt "I realized that they're not nice" is going to cut it with Dumbledore. >9)Why did Tom become Voldemort? Was there a trigger do you think?> I think it actually began as something very normal and innocent. He found out that his father left his mother because she was a witch. Obviously his father would also be ashamed/embarrassed of him (Voldemort) because he also had magical abilites. So he naturally had a strong dislike for his father. The fact that his father was a Muggle simply allowed him to use all Muggles as a scapegoat. Then he finds out about Salazaar Slytherin and his "kill all mudbloods" theme, and it's all Dark Arts and downhill from there. > 10) Is Fudge merely corrupt, a good man at heart, or evil? And to what degree?> Fudge is an idiot. Evil, I'm not sure. Possibly. But my opinion is that he's just a complete moron who lets himself be controlled and maniplulated in order to gain respect. I expect he may be a good man at heart, because he seems rather friendly; but my opinion is that he's a complete ditz with the total inability to handle his poisition as MoM. /end of Laura's random babbling/ -Laura From SusanXG at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 04:54:57 2002 From: SusanXG at hotmail.com (Xandersgirl18) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 04:54:57 -0000 Subject: Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47513 Hey all! I normally just lurk, but I was just thinking about this the other day and I had to pose it to the group. Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? Many big things have happened in the bathroom... -A Troll attacked Hermione in PS/SS -Moaning Myrtle haunt a toliet in CoS onward -The Polyjuice Potion was brewed and kept hidden there in CoS -The entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was in a bathroom -Harry figures out the second task in the prefect's bathroom in GoF Am I missing anything else? Any interesting theories? Susan :o) From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 06:47:34 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 06:47:34 -0000 Subject: Why Harry with the Philosopher's Stone? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47514 I think I must be completely missing something here. Why would Dumbledore want to prepare Harry to follow Quirrell past all the obstacles and into the mirror room? Or was he actually thinking that Harry would wind up there anyway and was just preparing him to cope if he did? These are the two scenarios and my questions: 1) Dumbledore intentionally had Harry learn enough to reach the PS for whatever reason (MD or just because he thought Harry had a right to face Voldemort or whatever). He gives Harry the cloak and leaves the mirror out, and Harry, Ron & Hermione figure out the rest on their own. My question is, isn't the stone actually safer in the mirror than in Harry's pocket? Wasn't there a good chance that Quirrell could have killed Harry with his wand or dug it out of his pocket while he was sitting on him? If Quirrell had used his wand on Harry straight off instead of attacking with his hands, Dumbledore would not have been there in time. 2) Dumbledore does not actually intend for Harry to try to reach the stone. He merely suspects that Harry might, indeed, go after it and so makes sure Harry understands the mirror of erised so that he will be prepared when it sends the stone into his pocket. This is how I originally read the story. This leads me back to the question of whether the stone isn't safer in the mirror without Harry around (not to mention Harry's safety). The mirror may have been enough to keep Quirrell from getting the stone without Harry there, but the other obstacles were clearly not enough to keep Harry from the mirror room. Was this a surprise to Dumbledore? If so, why prepare Harry to deal with the mirror? I guess where all this is leading for me is why exactly Dumbledore would want to set up a situation where Harry end up with the stone in his pocket and alone with Quirrell!mort? Anne From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 1 08:16:46 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 1 Dec 2002 08:16:46 -0000 Subject: File - HPfGU.announcement-Nimbus.htm Message-ID: <1038730606.105128.89920.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47515 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kateydidnt2002 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 08:27:24 2002 From: kateydidnt2002 at yahoo.com (kateydidnt2002) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 08:27:24 -0000 Subject: Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47516 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Xandersgirl18" wrote: > Hey all! > > I normally just lurk, but I was just thinking about this the other > day and I had to pose it to the group. > > Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? > > Many big things have happened in the bathroom... > > -A Troll attacked Hermione in PS/SS > -Moaning Myrtle haunt a toliet in CoS onward > -The Polyjuice Potion was brewed and kept hidden there in CoS > -The entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was in a bathroom > -Harry figures out the second task in the prefect's bathroom in GoF > > Am I missing anything else? > > Any interesting theories? > > > Susan :o) Trevor the toad was found lurking behind a toilet... actually i don't think it really has any big significance, but it would certainly be interesting if that turned out to be the case kateydidnt From mb2910 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 10:44:15 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 10:44:15 -0000 Subject: Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47517 Susan: Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? Many big things have happened in the bathroom... -A Troll attacked Hermione in PS/SS Me: Hermione went to the bathroom so she could cry, and Harry and Ron locked the troll in there, since they didn't know she was in there. The troll probably smelled Hermione or something and that is why it went to that specific toilet. Susan: -Moaning Myrtle haunt a toliet in CoS onward Me: That toilet is where she died, so presumably it's her favorite spot. Besides, she does go to Nick's party, and in GoF she goes to the Prefects bathroom Susan: -The Polyjuice Potion was brewed and kept hidden there in CoS Me: Well, assuming that Moaning Myrtle spends most of her time there and she also floods the place, it wouldn't be too pleasant to go there, so it's a convenient place to hide a zonking big cauldron with Polyjuice Potion in it, since no one (except for the trio and Myrtle) go there. Susan: -The entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was in a bathroom Me: The bathroom would prove to be a most convenient place to create an entrance to a place that is miles below the ground, under the school, because of the pipes and everything. Would be much less conspicuous if the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets were hidden behind a painting. Susan: -Harry figures out the second task in the prefect's bathroom in GoF Me: That is because Cedric has given him the password to get in there, so that he could figure it out in private, on his own. Besides, the egg had to be plunged into the water to solve the riddle, which made it a convenient place to be in. Kateydidnt: Trevor the toad was found lurking behind a toilet... actually i don't think it really has any big significance, but it would certainly be interesting if that turned out to be the case Me: I think it makes up for the almost complete lack of references to bathrooms and toilets in Star Trek :-D Besides, we spend a large portion of our lives in the bathroom, it's only natural that a story about people will incorporate that particular room in one way or another. Happy Hannuka, Christmas, Thanks Giving, (any other holidays that I don't know about) :) Meira. From monika at darwin.inka.de Sun Dec 1 12:08:13 2002 From: monika at darwin.inka.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:08:13 +0100 Subject: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47518 >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Judy" wrote: >Audra said: >>>>>I propose that Sirius was suffering from >the effects sensory deprivation and >solitary confinement from his time in Azkaban.... >Some possible effects of sensory deprivation >and solitary confinement (which I >will refer to now as SD and SC for brevity's sake) >that mimic PTSD are: vivid >fantasies, hyper-responsivity to external >stimuli, free-floating anxiety, and >extreme motor restlessness. Other possible >effects of SD and SC include doubt >of oneself and troubles in determining what >is real, problems with controlling >impulses (sometimes with random violence), >and emergence of primitive >aggressive fantasies.<<<< While I think this is an interesting POV, don't you think Sirius also qualifies for PTSD? The sensory deprivation he suffered in Azkaban certainly plays a role in his behavior in PoA, but IMHO he suffered a severe trauma when the Potters were murdered. This couldn't very well be resolved in Azkaban with all those Dementors around, and studies have shown that long term imprisonment can be traumatizing in itself. After all, he was innocent and never forgot this. Judy said: >Well, the symptoms certainly fit some of Sirius' behaviors in PoA. >The problem I see, however, is the timing. While Sirius probably >*was* sensory-deprived in Azkaban, he had been out of Azkaban for >about 10 months by the time of the Shrieking Shack scene. This is why I would maintain (as I have said numerous times in the past) that Sirius has PTSD. You can develop it even years after the trauma has passed, and symptoms can last for years, for some people even for a lifetime. It doesn't matter that he had been out of Azkaban for ten months, because it's *post*-traumatic stress disorder. >There is also still the question of why the symptoms would resolve by >GoF, if they did in fact persist for the whole year of PoA. Another reason why I'd say he is suffering from PTSD rather than from some other disorder. JKR did the only thing that could possibly help him without psychological assistance: she sent him away, *far* away, somewhere where neither the Dementors nor the MOM could reach him. He had to be given the opportunity to feel safe for a time to recover enough to play his role in GoF. And while four months of safety are certainly not enough time to make him fully recover from twelve years of ongoing trauma and torture, it was the best she could offer. And of course JKR had to keep him away from Harry for plot reasons. ;-) >I still think that if one wants an explanation for Sirius' behavior (I >mean, an explanation other than the obvious one that he just has a >really nasty temper), the best possibility is some sort of >as-yet-undefined syndrome caused by dementor exposure. I won't pick up here on his "nasty temper" because I'm convinced that's a red herring caused by his mental disorder, but let me clarify that JKR herself stated in an interview that Dementors caused clinical depressions. And we know that they also cause at least one classic PTSD symptom, that is making the victim relive the worst moments of his life (which is the same thing as the famous flashbacks). > Hey, the >dementors were still hanging around throughout PoA, so that's a >convenient explanation of why the symptoms persisted all year and yet >were suddenly gone a couple of months later! (Not that I subscribe to >this theory, myself.) I have to object here: his symptoms are certainly *not* gone a few months later. The violence is gone, yes, but not the fact that he is still emotionally distraught. It's only hinted at with the deadened look in his eyes, but since this isn't a story about Sirius or told from his POV, there's not really room to elaborate further on this. >In the same post, Audra mentioned Sirius' slashing the Fat Lady, and >said: >>>> Slashing the portrait -- This was an aggressive reaction, but I >would like to point out that the portrait was only an object, and I >consider it to be the equivalent of breaking down a door.<<< Well, unlike a lot of people here (and elsewhere) I will agree on this. Okay, those portraits seem to have feelings, but I still rather consider them as "objects". And IMHO JKR carefully chose to have him attack one of those rather than a person or even an animal. This is not "murder", but to maintain his image of the bad guy at this point of the book, he had to do something that would upset a good deal of the readers. Just my 2 cents. Monika who doesn't read HPFGU very often these days, but couldn't resist replying to this message. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Dec 1 13:22:24 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:22:24 -0000 Subject: Why Harry with the Philosopher's Stone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47519 Anne wrote: > I think I must be completely missing something here. Why would > Dumbledore want to prepare Harry to follow Quirrell past all the > obstacles and into the mirror room? Or was he actually thinking that > Harry would wind up there anyway and was just preparing him to cope > if he did? You are looking at this the wrong way about, probably because, when one has been in the list for a while, one tends to build theories on top of other theories, and if you don't know the theory that serves asd foundation, you get lost. As I said in a previous post, the "defenses" of the PS in the first year have little to do with MD, and in fact the theory that I was using was around before MD started. The problem is, you see, that you look at the "defenses" and have to wonder "what sort of incompetents set up, to protect the most valuable object in the world, a bunch of defenses three 11 year-olds could easily pass?". Quite some time back, someone proposed that question, and that put several people to thinking. And it got even better, because someone pointed out that, in fact, those "defenses" seem especially tailored to Harry and his friends (including Neville, who was conviniently awake that night and that could've been convinced to go with them instead of totally petrifying him). So, it looks like the "defenses" where not designed to stop anyone - just to prepare Harry and co. Train them, if you will. The idea behind this was originally metathinking (i.e: this are books called "Harry Potter and... " and the narrative gives him an education in the traditional sense of just hard enough), but it can be extended to a non-metathinking environment, by use of MD or some other theory in which Dumbledore is preparing Harry for the future confrontations with the DE (why Harry? because he is the boy who lived, has some of Voldemort's powers, so he is promising, and several other reasons we could come up with) > I guess where all this is leading for me is why exactly Dumbledore > would want to set up a situation where Harry end up with the stone in > his pocket and alone with Quirrell!mort? > > Anne You have to consider that, as I said, the stone wasn't that much in danger at any point. You suggest that Quirrelmort could've used his wand, but I doubt that: for all we know, Harry still had full love shield at that point and any spell directed at him from Voldemort (which in my eyes would include Quirrelmort) would rebound and hit them, just as trying to touch Harry burned them. He could've tried accioing the stone, but Harry can stop that by putting his hand at the end of the pocket. And, conveniently, Dumbledore was close enough to arrive in the nick of time, so if thigs really got dangerous he was around to save the day. Now, to go back to your question, you are mixing two situations that happen at the same time and that makes you think they are related. I proposed that Harry was being watched to determine his moral sense, and that his quest to save the stone and his ability to extract it from the mirror are proof of that. This does not include that Dumbledore had planned it this way: he can determine Harry's moral sense by pasivelly observing him go into all that trouble, without pushing him into it. But since I do believe that the "defenses" were though as a training excercise, it's logical to assume that Dumbledore had the little moral test at the end (after having tested resourcefulness, bravery, intelligence, knowledge, etc. etc.). And on the other hand, Dumbledore wanted (by his own words) give Harry a chance to face Voldemort once again. I take this as literal truth, but what it means is open to interpretation (as most of Dumbledore's words are). You can believe in the bait version, in which Dumbledore admits that he was facing Harry and Voldemort to see if the love shield could destroy Vapourmort, or you can believe the non-bait version where it is just a way of helping Harry confront the past and learn to not fear Voldemort (unlike all those unthinking wizards which fear even his name). Whatever the reason, however, you can see that they can be viewed as independent situations from each other, which happen nonetheless at the same time. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Sun Dec 1 13:42:36 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:42:36 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021201133205.009d8220@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 47520 At 04:54 01/12/02 +0000, Xandersgirl18 wrote: >Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? I suspect it's mainly an in-joke on JKR's part - bodily functions are glossed over in just about all fiction (what other books in *any* genre mention toilets?) and it's just another little touch which makes the Potterverse more real. The one thing I find strange is that although we've had several mentions of toilets and bathrooms, they've never been introduced in their normal context. Toilets are where girls go to cry, the prefects' bathroom is where Harry goes for a night-time swim (and to decode the egg clue), yet we never for instance have a pupil put up a hand in class in need of relieving themselves. Would would happen in a Potions class (which are, I would note, double the length, and thus more likely than most to require a break) if someone asked Snape to be excused? :-) -- GulPlum AKA Richard, still desperately trying to catch up and miserably falling behind. :-( From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Sun Dec 1 14:25:40 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:25:40 +0000 Subject: Witch hunt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021201141612.009ad7f0@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 47521 (apologies for short post) At 18:59 30/11/02 +0000, Indigo wrote: >The Ministry of Magic seems, ironically, to have a witch hunt >mentality. Sirius was convicted without proof that he was the guilty >party, but on circumstantial evidence. Oh, I don't think that this irony is in the slightest bit accidental, nor indeed is the term (I'm not sure if you used it deliberately or not). Whether or not the wizarding world developed such a lax attitude towards justice as a result of their treatment at the hands of Muggles, or whether things have always been that way, is pure speculation. But I definitely think that the whole notion of shooting from the hip and asking questions later is very deliberately planted by JKR. The wizarding world has lots of skeletons in its various magically-enlarged closets and we've only had a little peek inside. From mb2910 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 14:16:18 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:16:18 -0000 Subject: Several questions about the Dursleys, the Fidelius charm and Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47522 This subject(s) was(were) probably discussed several (billion) times in the past here, but I'm hereby asking them (probably) again. Feel free to sigh and say "Oh, no, not again the question about (fill in proper subject)..." *hides the rotten tomatoes* ^-^ So here is my question: Dumbledore placed Harry on the doorstep of no. 4 Privet Drive for the Dursleys to care for him and raise Harry. for 11 years, the Dursley's greatest wish was to get rid of Harry, and suddenly Harry gets this letter from Hogwarts telling him that he has been accepted to study there, and the Dursleys do everything they can to prevent him from going there (they don't have much success in that endeavor, but that is another matter). Having a wizard in the house would be a bad thing (from Vernon's and Petunia's POV) for a few reasons: It's the most un-normal thing possible, and they don't want people handling frog spawn and wands under their roof, and it's a *very* bad influence on Dinky Duddydums. That is why, when Harry does come back for the summer vacation, that they lock his things away and padlock Hedwig's cage. But... sending Harry to a very far away place should be (for the Dursleys) as if 10 years worth of Christmass's, Hannuka's, Birthdays have been cramped into a single day. So, why would they want to prevent Harry from going to Hogwarts? (for example, in CoS, when Ron and the twins "play" tug-o-war with the Dursleys, with Harry as the thing being tugged), or in PS/SS, in the hut, that Vernon tells Hagrid that Harry will under no circumstances go to Hogwarts and that he will go to Stonewall High and be greatful for it). Just to prevent Harry from getting what he wants? It doesn't seem to me that the Dursleys would care too much about what Harry would become and do in his life, except in the sense of keeping him as down-trodden as possible. My opinion is that the same charms and spells that protect Harry at the Dursley's residence, sort of protected Harry from getting thrown out the nearest window or something like that, and here's another Nice Little Question (several, in fact, but who's counting *g*): What would have happened if the Dursleys would have decided to move? The charms protecting Harry would have moved too? What would Mrs. Figg do, since she's there to keep an eye on Harry? Do the charms prevent the Dursleys of moving because of Mrs. Figg and the logisitical challenge it would be to move the charms with them? Another opinion that I have (which might not be too original and innovative but I like it *g*) is that Dumbledore knew about Harry's problematic (putting it nicely) family: "'I never expected this,' he [Hagrid] said, in a low, worried voice. 'I had no idea, when Dumbledore told me there might be trouble gettin' hold of yeh,...'" ~PS, chapter 4 - "The Keeper of the Keys", p. 44 in the Bloomsbury version~ And more questions: Is it possible that Dumbledore knew from the start that they were going to be like that? Maybe that is why he wanted Harry growing up there, to prepare him mentally or emotionally for the future? Meira. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 1 16:14:43 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:14:43 -0000 Subject: What Dobby knew was Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47523 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: >>Canon point: In CoS Dobby knows all about the Riddle Diary plot. To know about it, Dobby must have heard Lucius talking about it. The options are: Malfoy's wife, his son (which Draco denies), his house-elf ? or the original owner of the diary.<< If the diary plot was between Diary!Riddle and Lucius, then Dobby could have found out about it just by reading over Lucius's shoulder. It's clear that wizards aren't accustomed to thinking about their House Elves as security risks, and in any case, House Elves are pretty good at not being seen when they don't wish to be. Pippin From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Dec 1 16:49:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:49:27 -0000 Subject: Several questions about the Dursleys, the Fidelius charm and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47524 Meira wrote: > Dumbledore placed Harry on the doorstep of no. 4 Privet Drive for the > Dursleys to care for him and raise Harry. > > for 11 years, the Dursley's greatest wish was to get rid of Harry, > and suddenly Harry gets this letter from Hogwarts telling him that he > has been accepted to study there, and the Dursleys do everything they > can to prevent him from going there (they don't have much success in > that endeavor, but that is another matter). > > Having a wizard in the house would be a bad thing (from Vernon's and > Petunia's POV) for a few reasons: It's the most un-normal thing > possible, and they don't want people handling frog spawn and wands > under their roof, and it's a *very* bad influence on Dinky Duddydums. > That is why, when Harry does come back for the summer vacation, that > they lock his things away and padlock Hedwig's cage. > > But... sending Harry to a very far away place should be (for the > Dursleys) as if 10 years worth of Christmass's, Hannuka's, Birthdays > have been cramped into a single day. > > So, why would they want to prevent Harry from going to Hogwarts? IMO, there are, at any given point, three distinctly strong impulses happening inside the Dursleys. The first and foremost is that impulse that has been driving them ever since harry arrived at their doorstep: the primal fear that he will turn out to be a wizard, thus "contaminating" them, making them "freaks". The have little understanding of magic, and hey seem to really believe that they can prevent Harry from becoming a wizard by stopping him from going to school and by discouraging magical acts by making his life even worse than it already was anytime anything magical happened around him. The second impulse is, of course, seeing as little of Harry as possibe. They hate his guts, consider him a freak, an unsolicited foundling they have to care for (and there are several theories surronding this point: what is in it for them that they are willing to care for him? What threats did Dumbledore use?). This can be seen in the fact that they tell Harry to ask if he can stay at Hogwarts during the summer. And finally, there is a third impulse, the worst of the three, which is that, above all, they *don't want Harry to be happy*. Harry himself knows about this, and says as much in the opening chapters of GoF: Uncle Vernon was doubting whether to allow him to go to the Wesley's, because, although it would mean Harry leaving a month earlier, it would also mean making him happy (by this point, note, Harry speaks of the *two* driving impulses of Vernon's life: the first one is by them a lost cause). So, to answer your question, The Dursleys try to stop Harry from going to the school because it would make him happy and educate him in magic, two things they don't want to allow, even if it does take Harry away for months. But, since they could put him into some muggle boarding school if worse came to worst, they would've prefered Harry staying, where they can make his life miserable. > What would have happened if the Dursleys would have decided to move? > The charms protecting Harry would have moved too? What would Mrs. > Figg do, since she's there to keep an eye on Harry? Do the charms > prevent the Dursleys of moving because of Mrs. Figg and the > logisitical challenge it would be to move the charms with them? Yes, this has indeed been troted by the list before indeed, but never from this angle. I don't recall, at least, the suggestion of the DUrsleys packing up and leaving. The general idea, however, seems to be tht Harry is protected by being with his family, not in Privet Drive. Which is why Harry could go shopping with Petunia, or to the zoo. If they moved, the protection would go with them. Now, for the problem of Mrs Figg. I can think of several possible solutions for such occasion. For example, she might come up with an excuse to move close to them. Or she might pass the job to another wizard, thus making the situation less suspicious. Or, if some of the polyjuice!Figg theories happen to be true, she simply changes hair and moves in with another identity. And I'm sure there are multiple other solutions. > Another opinion that I have (which might not be too original and > innovative but I like it *g*) is that Dumbledore knew about Harry's > problematic (putting it nicely) family: "'I never expected this,' he > [Hagrid] said, in a low, worried voice. 'I had no idea, when > Dumbledore told me there might be trouble gettin' hold of yeh,...'" > ~PS, chapter 4 - "The Keeper of the Keys", p. 44 in the Bloomsbury > version~ > > And more questions: Is it possible that Dumbledore knew from the > start that they were going to be like that? Maybe that is why he > wanted Harry growing up there, to prepare him mentally or emotionally > for the future? > > Meira. I definetely believe that Dumbledore knew what the Dursleys were like (maybe from Lily's description of them, maybe from meeting them in the wedding - Dumbledore would be the sort to try and speak with the muggles), but he put Harry in their hands nonetheless because it was necessary: the magical protection called for relatives and they are the only ones available. I do think that the letter that was left with Harry did not only contain instructions on the ways of the WW, but also some threats so that Harry would be allowed to live with them (and not immediately taken to the nearest orphanage). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 16:50:23 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:50:23 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Several questions about the Dursleys, the Fidelius charm and Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <005a01c29959$be2f38a0$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47525 ----- Original Message ----- From: "meira_q" > So, why would they want to prevent Harry from going to Hogwarts? Me: I think that the Dursleys, while irritated at being stuck with Harry, do take their responsobility seriously and will probably do so until he is of legal age or someone else steps up to take responsobility for him (Sirius) That is why they don't want him to go to Hogwarts. He is in their charge and they are trying to stamp out the magic in him. > What would have happened if the Dursleys would have decided to move? me: I'd imagine there is a contingency for this. Probably the spells move with him and probably so does Mrs. Figg. One move they might not think suspicious, just convenient that they still have their baby sitter. > And more questions: Is it possible that Dumbledore knew from the > start that they were going to be like that? Maybe that is why he > wanted Harry growing up there, to prepare him mentally or emotionally > for the future? me: I think Dumbledore knew it would make him humble not pround and cocky. Rob From Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 1 17:00:33 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 12:00:33 EST Subject: Another Harry Potter (was: Re: Web Site for HP Name Meanings (WAS: Harry's name) Message-ID: <1ab.cdb459e.2b1b9a31@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47526 erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com wrote: << in Dahl's "James and the Giant Peach" whose parents die in a freak > accident, is left to be raised by his two horrid aunts (one of whom > is bony) and discovers magic...James Henry Trotter, Harry James > Potter...). Then Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com wrote: Also, P G Wodehouse wrote a story called "Mr Potter Takes a Rest Cure", starring John Hamilton Potter. At one point, seing the horrible Clifford Gandle approaching, Mr. Potter jumps back and hides in a small cupboard (which, naturally, Mr. Gandle opens). For that matter, "The Man who Gave Up Smoking", also by P G Wodehouse, has Hermione Rossiter, and her brother George...>> Me: Old thread, this. Just demonstrates what a backlog of HPfGU posts I haven't read. Does anyone remember the 1986 movie, "Troll"? This movie was a childhood favorite of mine, in which a boy named Harry Potter (played by Noah Hathaway of "The Neverending Story" fame) fights against a troll who is transfiguring everyone and everything in his apartment building. "Troll" was the first thing that came to my mind when I first heard about the Harry Potter series. Audra From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 16:19:48 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:19:48 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Witch hunt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47527 Indigo wrote: > >The Ministry of Magic seems, ironically, to have a witch hunt >mentality. >Sirius was convicted without proof that he was the guilty >party, but on >circumstantial evidence. GulPlum responded: >I definitely think that the whole notion of shooting from the hip and >asking questions later is very deliberately planted by JKR. The wizarding >world has lots of skeletons in its various magically-enlarged closets and >we've only had a little peek inside. Me then: I think that this whole thematic area within the books is a fascinating one, and probably one of the darker aspects of the Potterverse. It certainly looks like the Judicial system within the WW is deeply flawed. Sirius is sent to Azkaban on flimsy evidence, and the key is literally thrown away. Yet individuals like Karkaroff are allowed free for agreeing to spill the beans on their "friends", despite heinous crimes. There seems to be a decided imbalance here. Hagrid is sent down on similarly shaky circumstantial grounds. There seems to be no standardisation, little legal precedence and the attitude seems to be one of punishment rather than rehabilitation. Azkaban itself is depicted as a hell-like place where the Dementors are permitted to have virtually free-rein. The effects these creature have on human-kind is described in vivid detail in the books, and it is tantamount to torture. Hagrid tells us in PA that being in Azkaban made him feel like he was "goin mad...Yeh can' really remember who yeh are after a while. An' yeh can' see the point o' livin' at all." (PA, Chapter 11, p 163-164). We know from GoF that some prisoners cannot bear the influence of the Dementors, and simply die. Why is this barbarous practice allowed to continue? We know that wizards like Dumbledore are staunchly opposed to the Dementors, and believe that allying with them is dangerous. It seems, however, that the weight of opinion is that they serve a purpose in policing the prison population in Azkaban. This must be considered disturbing. I think that what JKR is doing, and she does this regularly in the books, is to draw a parrallel between the WW and the MW. There are large parts of Muggle society that are very wrong - the class system, prejudice, violence etc. These things also exist in Wizard society. The details may be different, but the problems are just the same. Wizards may have magical powers, but they are still human. In the judicial system in the books, we see the response of a society that has just been through years of fear, paranoia and suspiscion. Maybe not unlike Europe after the holocaust, or America during the McCarthy era. People are still afraid that mistakes may be repeated, and the best way to deal with that is to try and get rid of any loose canons. The courts that we saw in the Penseive, the stories we hear from Sirius about the Dark Years, the existence of Azkaban itself, all back this up. The term "witch-hunt" is not a bad one at all. And I think that GulPlum is right. I bet that there are many, many horror stories just like those of Sirius. Don't forget, Barty Crouch was on a crusade for many years, determined to prove his loyalties. Shane. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From Bootekusic at msn.com Sun Dec 1 16:22:40 2002 From: Bootekusic at msn.com (bootekusic) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:22:40 -0000 Subject: The Hogwarts Library and search engine... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47528 Hello, I do not know if this has come up or not in past posts. I've tried to search for it in the archives and such, but abandoned that rather quickly. Anyway, it struck me as odd that there is no quick way of finding information in the Hogwarts library. An example would is shown in the first book when they can't find a thing on Nicholas Flamel and search for him for weeks. They have the same problem in The Goblet of Fire when Harry and Hermione are looking for information on dragons and how to "defeat" them. They run across the problem yet again when he has to figure out how to breathe underwater. To me, it seemed like there should be some quick way of finding what you need, using something like a search engine or even a card catalog! Do you think that they had this problem with other subjects also? This just struck me as strange because there seem to be quick ways to do MOST things in the Wizarding world as opposed to the Muggle world. So I'll let you guys mull this over while I finish GOF for the 5th time... - Bootekusic From nosref at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 15:55:27 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 15:55:27 -0000 Subject: Some Questions = Theories Wanted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47529 "evenflow200214" wrote: > 2)The Weasley's have a clock that tells each of them where each > member of the family is, home, work etc... Why then, during Harry > and Ron's adventures with the spiders, would the clock for Ron not > appear on "mortal peril"? Or when Ginny was in the Chamber or > talking to Tom > wouldn't the Weasley's be straight over to Hogwarts, banging down > Dumbledore's door? Or when Ron was trapped with Sirius? The clock > doesn't know that he's innocent... And he's chained to a werewolf. > Why doesn't the clock tell the Weasely's that they are in "mortal > danger"? Me: Since all of those things that happened to the weasley kids occured in Hogwarts, the clock may simply chose to remain pointing at the word "school". When Ginny was trapped in the chamber, maybe the "ginny" clockhand pointed to "lost" since during that time nobody knew where the CoS was. > 7) Will Harry and Cho get together, in your opinions? Me: No. In respect to Diggory. > 10) Is Fudge merely corrupt, a good man at heart, or evil? And to > what degree? Me: I don't think Fudge is evil. I think he's just weak. He's afraid that the news of voldemort's return would destabilized the MoM. And I think he can't handle that. (IMHO, he was probably a Slytherin during his Hogwarts days... he definitely doesn't have the courage of a Gryffindor nor the brains of a Ravenclaw but its obvious he has the ambition.) -Fer From yirzmbassoon at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 16:50:08 2002 From: yirzmbassoon at yahoo.com (yirzmbassoon) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:50:08 -0000 Subject: Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47530 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Xandersgirl18" wrote: > Hey all! > > I normally just lurk, but I was just thinking about this the other > day and I had to pose it to the group. > > Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? > > Many big things have happened in the bathroom... > > -A Troll attacked Hermione in PS/SS > -Moaning Myrtle haunt a toliet in CoS onward > -The Polyjuice Potion was brewed and kept hidden there in CoS > -The entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was in a bathroom > -Harry figures out the second task in the prefect's bathroom in GoF > > Am I missing anything else? > > Any interesting theories? > Susan :o) Along with everything else in the books, I believe it to be symbolic. The bathroom symbolizes privacy, but it also symbolizes vulnerability. From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 16:59:17 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 16:59:17 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47531 Xandersgirl18 wrote: > >Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? GulPlum wrote: >I suspect it's mainly an in-joke on JKR's part - bodily functions are >glossed over in just about all fiction (what other books in *any* genre >mention toilets?) and it's just another little touch which makes the >Potterverse more real. Certainly, (and someone else on list commented on their total absence in Star Trek), you don't often hear of them in other genres. I know we're not supposed to mention Lord of the Rings, but during that entire very long book noone seems to need to head off into the undergrowth to take a leak, and we never hear Frodo commenting on how good it is to be able to use the fine Elvish facilities when they at last reached Rivendell! A couple of things occurred to me while reading the posts on this thread: 1. Moaning Myrtle's behaviour is very reminiscent of a victim of sexual repression, often after abuse. Blocking or clogging up toilets is a common behaviour of individuals suffering sexual identity crises, or, more controversially, individuals who are fixated in the Anal Stage (as referred to in Freudian discourse). Myrtle's living in the toilet, spending time down the U-Bend in the pipe, and even allowing herself to be flushed out into the lake (amid the detritus deposited from above) is certainly a parrallel of this type of behaviour pattern. Could it be that her death, right in the midst of adolescence, has left her with some unresolved issues? 2. Hermione hiding in the toilet when she is upset due to Ron's comments in PS is also indicative of Hermione's developmental stage. Hermione and Ron, as we see later in the canon, appear to have a burgeoning attraction. Once again using a Freudian analysis, at age eleven, Ron and Hermione are just coming out of what Freud called the Latency stage, where children force themselves not to notice the opposite gender and instead focus on gender specific roles and behaviour. At around age eleven, they begin to shift into the Genital stage, where they begin to see the opposite sex in a more attractive light, but will still have Latent feelings, and be slightly confused and uncomfortable with this attraction. When Ron says the hurtful things he does about Hermione, he underscores the feelings of discomfort she is already feeling about boys in general. She seeks a sanctuary where boys are not permitted access - the girl's toilet! Here she can feel secure and safe in the knowledge that this is solely a female domain. 3. Gulplum wrote: >The one thing I find strange is that although we've had several mentions of >toilets and bathrooms, they've never been introduced in their normal >context. This is a good point. Toilets in JKR are what Bettelheim referred to as "in between places", places where kids can hang out when they need to be on their own, free from the prying eyes of adults, or when they are feeling vulnerable (other examples of in between places would be stairs, hallways, back-of-the-bike-sheds). I don't know about you, but when I was in school, toilets were places where older kids would hang out to smoke cigarettes - another activity that Hogwarts seems to be completely free of. Do wizards smoke at all I wonder? They do in Tolkien, but JKR's wizards seem to be nicotene free. Well, those are my thoughts on the toilet debate. Somehow I feel that we will be visiting the conveniences in Hogwarts many more times in the following books. It seems that JKR has a real sense of their importance, in a symbolic way, to young people. And iritating or not, Myrtle is a fun character! Shane. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From sammerz2388 at aol.com Sun Dec 1 17:40:02 2002 From: sammerz2388 at aol.com (sammerz2388) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:40:02 -0000 Subject: Dursleys' desire to hold onto Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47532 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meira_q" wrote: > > Dumbledore placed Harry on the doorstep of no. 4 Privet Drive for the > Dursleys to care for him and raise Harry. > > for 11 years, the Dursley's greatest wish was to get rid of Harry, > and suddenly Harry gets this letter from Hogwarts telling him that he > has been accepted to study there, and the Dursleys do everything they > can to prevent him from going there (they don't have much success in > that endeavor, but that is another matter). > > Having a wizard in the house would be a bad thing (from Vernon's and > Petunia's POV) for a few reasons: It's the most un-normal thing > possible, and they don't want people handling frog spawn and wands > under their roof, and it's a *very* bad influence on Dinky Duddydums. > That is why, when Harry does come back for the summer vacation, that > they lock his things away and padlock Hedwig's cage. > > But... sending Harry to a very far away place should be (for the > Dursleys) as if 10 years worth of Christmass's, Hannuka's, Birthdays > have been cramped into a single day. > > So, why would they want to prevent Harry from going to Hogwarts? > (for example, in CoS, when Ron and the twins "play" tug-o-war with > the Dursleys, with Harry as the thing being tugged), or in PS/SS, in > the hut, that Vernon tells Hagrid that Harry will under no > circumstances go to Hogwarts and that he will go to Stonewall High > and be greatful for it). Just to prevent Harry from getting what he > wants? It doesn't seem to me that the Dursleys would care too much > about what Harry would become and do in his life, except in the sense > of keeping him as down-trodden as possible. From what JKR has given us, the Dursleys appear to be obsessed with normalcy . Within the first few pages of PS/SS, Vernon threatens Harry ("no funny business...") before the *family* trip to the zoo. I got the feeling of Vernon being extremely hateful towards all things "funny" - he does seem to be one of those people who house strong resentment against that which they do not understand... Petunia joins her husband in this outrage against magic - consider her many temper tantrums at the mention of her wretched sister, Lily. Any reminder of Petunia's tainted childhood sends her into a flying rage, complete with rants and raves about Lily's putrid husband, James. With parents like these, Dudley couldn't possibly be raised with anything but a deep hate for magic (if he even comprehends the fact that magic lurks in his household ;-)). So here we've a family of three, with a distaste for anything detracting from their normalcy. It seems normal to me that, despite their detestment for Harry, they'd want to keep him home where he wouldn't be involved with the magic world in any way, shape, or form. What if someone were to discover that the nephew they had raised for 11 years was some kind of "freak", shipped off to some *special* school? I think Petunia's already run through these scenarios in her mind, and come to the conclusion it would be *much* better off keeping Harry at home. Perhaps the Dursleys are afraid to send Harry to Hogwarts because they fear what will happen on his return. Will a big, bad, magic-wand-carrying nephew come back for vengeance, evil spells in hand? Or, hey, we could just chalk it up to the Dursleys' all-out weirdness. :-) "sammerz2388" From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sun Dec 1 18:11:46 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:11:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dursleys' desire to hold onto Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47533 In a message dated 12/1/2002 1:00:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, sammerz2388 at aol.com writes: > What if someone > were to discover that the nephew they had raised for 11 years was > some kind of "freak", shipped off to some *special* school? I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but what about them saying Harry went to St. Brutus's School for Incurably Criminal Boys? With their need to be 'normal' why would they pretend Harry was 'an incurably criminal boy'? In this day and age one would probably come to the conclusion that Harry had been influenced by his environment if they believed he went to St. Brutus's. Though I suppose in comparison to him being a wizard it's not as disgraceful to the Dursleys. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 1 18:13:09 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:13:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Harry with the Philosopher's Stone? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47534 anne said: > He merely suspects that Harry might, indeed, go after it and > so makes sure Harry understands the mirror of erised so that he will > be prepared when it sends the stone into his pocket. Grey Wolf said: This does not include that Dumbledore had planned it this way: he can determine Harry's moral sense by pasivelly observing him go into all that trouble, without pushing him into it. But since I do believe that the "defenses" were though as a training excercise, it's logical to assume that Dumbledore had the little moral test at the end (after having tested resourcefulness, bravery, intelligence, knowledge, etc. etc.). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Dec 1 18:36:57 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:36:57 -0000 Subject: The Hogwarts Library and search engine... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47535 Bootekusic wrote: > Anyway, it struck me as odd that there is no quick way of > finding information in the Hogwarts library. An example would is > shown in the first book when they can't find a thing on Nicholas > Flamel and search for him for weeks. They have the same problem in > The Goblet of Fire when Harry and Hermione are looking for > information on dragons and how to "defeat" them. They run across the > problem yet again when he has to figure out how to breathe > underwater. To me, it seemed like there should be some quick way of > finding what you need, using something like a search engine or even a > card catalog! Do you think that they had this problem with other > subjects also? This just struck me as strange because there seem to > be quick ways to do MOST things in the Wizarding world as opposed to > the Muggle world. So I'll let you guys mull this over while I finish > GOF for the 5th time... > > - Bootekusic The easiest way to find anything in a library is something that we have yet to see Harry doing: asking the librarian! That is what Pince is there for, after all. However, Harry and co. seem possesed by a latent distrust towards figures in authority and prefer trying to find the info on their own (I can't blame them... I used to feel the same at their age). In every example you have put, they had a reason to keep others from knowing what they were looking for: they cannot let know that they have clues about Flammel (it would put Hagrid in danger for having told them), they cannot let know that Hagrid told them the first task would involve dragons, they don't want Krum to know that they have solved the egg puzzle, etc. There are multiple times in the books where they *do* find what they are looking for, though, and JKR simply skips over that part to the part where they are reding the correct book. Doing homework, for example. Now, how does Pince find the information herself? We should ask Lexicon Steve this (he should know, if anyone), but I have the feeling that a librarian's job is to know where everything is. And there could be spells for searching books by content, only they don't come in the reglamentary school books, and are relatively unimportant, and thus Hermione has not heard of them yet. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 1 18:37:38 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:37:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Harry with the Philosopher's Stone? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47536 Grrr... So much for my first post off of moderated status; accidentally pressing the 'send now' button before I'd even typed anything. My apologies to the list. Now, here's the real message: anne said: > > > >> He merely suspects that Harry might, indeed, go after it and >> so makes sure Harry understands the mirror of erised so that he will >> be prepared when it sends the stone into his pocket. I have a completely different original reading of this. I thought that Dumbledore left the mirror for Harry to find because he wanted him to see his family in it. Dumbledore knew that having a family was Harry's deepest desire, and he wanted to be able to tell Harry that he shouldn't waste away wishing for his family, like the men in front of the Mirror of Erised, and should, instead, move on with his new life with his friends. I have such a sappy theory... > > > Grey Wolf said: > > This does not include that Dumbledore had > planned it this way: he can determine Harry's moral sense by pasivelly > observing him go into all that trouble, without pushing him into it. > But since I do believe that the "defenses" were though as a training > excercise, it's logical to assume that Dumbledore had the little moral > test at the end (after having tested resourcefulness, bravery, > intelligence, knowledge, etc. etc.). I don't think that the tests were ment to be hard. I think that the only test that was needed to guard the stone was the last one, and the rest were all tricks, of a sort. (To follow my thinking, it is best to forget that Harry & co. or Quirrelmort could get through the tricks and just think of a random DE, like Lucius, getting through them.) To get through the tests, you need cunning (putting fluffy to sleep), resourcefulness (as you said, GW, for the devil's snare), agility (to get the key on a broom), Strength (to defeat the ogre), Intelligence (for McGonagall's chess set), and logic (for the potions puzzle). All of these things are qualities that can be expected in a Deatheater. They are certainly all things that Voldemort himself possesses, or he would not have gotten as powerful as he did. I cannot believe that Dumbledore expected these tests to stop any full grown witch or wizard (but he was impressed with the 1st years' abilities, which is what makes our trio so special ^_^v) I think that the tests, with the possible exception of Fluffy, because the way through that test was tricking Hagrid, and wasn't anything that a person could know on their own, were designed to make the DE think that there was a trick to each test, that there was a way through them all. The DE could not know that the final test would be a test of morality, something that no dark wizard looking to fulfill their own ends could pass. Even if Dumbledore, in all his infinite wisdom, suspected Quirrelmort to be evil, and suspected that Harry & co. would be able to get past the tests, the tests were set up so that no dark wizard could pass them all, and anyone seeking to protect the stone could get it. Now, I shall sit back and wait for someone to punch very big holes in my ideas. -Scheherazade, who is ever so sorry for the misspost [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 19:10:45 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:10:45 -0000 Subject: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47537 Scheherazade (gracious that is a mouthful) wrote: >I have a completely different original reading of this. I thought >that Dumbledore left the mirror for Harry to find because he wanted >him to see his family in it. Dumbledore knew that having a family >was Harry's deepest desire, and he wanted to be able to tell Harry >that he shouldn't waste away wishing for his family, like the men in >front of the Mirror of Erised, and should, instead, move on with his >new life with his friends. I have such a sappy theory... Hey, sappy can be good. It is a kind thing for Dumbledore to do teaching Harry to not dwell on what can never be changed. I have two problems with it though. Why the mirror and would that be an unneccesary stone security risk? 1. Why show Harry at that time? The mirror was *supposed* to be hiding the stone and really it might of been at that time. So, Dumbledore magiced, because I assume he would not carry it, up to the third floor just to let Harry see his parents? He could of gotten pictures together like Hagrid did and let the boy have a picture book. Dumbledore could then of hid in Harry's dorm and popped out to teach the same lesson when Harry spend hours looking at the pictures. It would of been less risk too. Bring the mirror out of the maze was jeopardizing the stone if it was in there. Actually if it was not, the stone would not of been as safe as it was in the mirror, so I guess the stone was in jeopardy anyway. Ok so I managed to put my two points into that one. Oh well. I just don't buy the idea that Dumbledore thought 'hey this mirror that I am using to hid a very valuable magic item could help with showing young Harry how to no be wrapped up in impossible dreams. Let me borrow it for a moment.' He had other reasons behind that little lesson. Scheherazade wrote about obstacles: >All of these things are qualities that can be expected in a >Deatheater. They are certainly all things that Voldemort himself >possesses, or he would not have gotten as powerful as he did. You think so? True someone could have *all* those qualities, but it is highly unlikely. Generally people specialize in a certain area. I know I would of been stopped at the chess board. I'm a defensive person not offensive. Most would not be fast enough to get the key. Then there is the logic which few people have let alone wizards have. So, I think the obstacles were actually a fair unknown defense. Just that when one learns what they are, they can practice for them. We know Quirrell was a part of the set up phase, so he could of practiced how to get past each phase. Melody From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 19:37:45 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:37:45 -0000 Subject: Why Harry with the Philosopher's Stone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47538 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > You have to consider that, as I said, the stone wasn't that much in > danger at any point. You suggest that Quirrelmort could've used his > wand, but I doubt that: for all we know, Harry still had full love > shield at that point and any spell directed at him from Voldemort > (which in my eyes would include Quirrelmort) would rebound and hit > them, just as trying to touch Harry burned them. He could've tried > accioing the stone, but Harry can stop that by putting his hand at the > end of the pocket. And, conveniently, Dumbledore was close enough to > arrive in the nick of time, so if thigs really got dangerous he was > around to save the day. Oh, I get it! I was thinking that Lily's protection would prevent avada kedavra, and that Quirrell could simply have stunned Harry. But it makes more sense that her protection, which included AK and skin to skin contact, would also include any other hostile spell attempted by Voldemort on Harry. This must be why, in the graveyard, Voldemort did not do cruciatus or imperio on Harry until after the resurrection potion (I had always just assumed he was too eager to do the potion to want to stop and hurt Harry, but I see that he probably couldn't hurt him at all yet). I am still not so sure how near-at-hand Dumbledore was, since Hermione and Ron meet him coming into the entrance hall at the end, and, according to D himself, "the effort involved [fighting Quirrell] nearly killed [him]" -- paraphrase from D's explanation to Harry in the hospital scene at the end of the book. Perhaps he was just surprised by the timing of the events? But, yes, your post (all of it), certainly does help. And to Scheherezade, great post about the mirror! I had completely forgotten, since it's been so long since the *first* time I read the book, that at the time I also thought it was important for Harry to have this chance to deal with the loss of his family and living without them! I can well believe Dumbledore had this in mind, too. Anne From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Sun Dec 1 19:52:12 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:52:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47539 Monika Huebner wrote: > don't you think Sirius also > qualifies for PTSD? There was a lively debate in the past few days as to whether Sirius had PTSD. Several people suported the idea that he did. I said that he didn't, because his symptoms were wrong (no overt signs of anxiety), he recovered too quickly, and that his symptoms developed while he was still being traumatized instead of afterwards. If you follow the thread up, or search on PTSD, you should be able to find the posts. Monika also said: > JKR did the only thing that could possibly help > him without psychological assistance: she sent him away, *far* away, > somewhere where neither the Dementors nor the MOM could reach him. > He had to be given the opportunity to feel safe for a time to recover > enough to play his role in GoF. And while four months of safety are > certainly not enough time to make him fully recover from twelve > years of ongoing trauma and torture, it was the best she could offer. This was another point that was discussed quite a bit in the past few days. By the way, I believe the summer break at Hogwarts is only two months (July and August), not four. I can't see the argument that Sirius "really" has PTSD but JKR just didn't write him to fit the disorder because of plot constraints. I could just as easily argue that Snape is in actuality a very kind and nice guy, and his nastiness to Harry is only because JKR couldn't fit his sweetness and light into the plot. Audra had said, regarding Sirius' slashing the Fat Lady: > >>>> Slashing the portrait -- This was an aggressive reaction, but I > >would like to point out that the portrait was only an object, and I > >consider it to be the equivalent of breaking down a door.<<< And Monika replied: > I will agree on > this. Okay, those portraits seem to have feelings, but I still > rather consider them as "objects". Are you sure you want that as your philosophy? If things that have feelings can be considered objects, with which one can do as one pleases, then what objection can be given when Lucius treats house elves, and even non-magical humans, as objects to be tortured for fun? If we withhold all rights, even the right not to be randomly attacked, from some beings that have feelings, then what are the grounds for granting that right to *anyone*? -- Judy Serenity From nosref at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 15:26:28 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 15:26:28 -0000 Subject: Spotting Magic (was: Revisitng The Decree) In-Reply-To: <20021201050112.94285.qmail@web20810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47540 Eclipse wrote: > All this talk about the Decree for the Reasonable > Restriction of Underage Sorcery, made me think that > the office that manages it must not be able to enforce > it while there are adult wizards around. They couldn't > tell the difference between Harry's magic and Dobby's. > I think that they just trust the wizard parents to > police their own childern, and any magic that happened > in Muggle homes must be done by the students because > who else could of done it. now me: Agreed! If the ministry "spotted" someone doing magic in "the burrows", for example, I think they wouldn't be able to determine if it was Arthur, Molley or one of their underage kids. I wonder how they do it ("spotting" magic), though. Any thoughts on this? -Fer From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 20:13:38 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:13:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47541 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Judy" wrote: > Monika Huebner wrote: > > I will agree on > > this. Okay, those portraits seem to have feelings, but I still > > rather consider them as "objects". > > Are you sure you want that as your philosophy? If things that have > feelings can be considered objects, with which one can do as one > pleases, then what objection can be given when Lucius treats house > elves, and even non-magical humans, as objects to be tortured for fun? > If we withhold all rights, even the right not to be randomly attacked, > from some beings that have feelings, then what are the grounds for > granting that right to *anyone*? > Hm. You know, after checking the book - and someone may have pointed this out, I haven't paid much attention to this thread - there is nothing that directly states that Sirius harmed the Fat Lady. Now, Peeves says she's "a mess" but I take that to mean that she's emotionally distraught at the way her "home" was vandalized. Second point: The attack was NOT random. You don't take a post guarding something without the understanding that you might run into trouble. Occupational hazards, you might say. Again, if someone's said this already... um. Oh well? *grin* -C.K. clicketykeys From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 20:28:04 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:28:04 -0000 Subject: Dursleys' desire to hold onto Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47542 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., IAmLordCassandra at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/1/2002 1:00:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > sammerz2388 at a... writes: > > > What if someone > > were to discover that the nephew they had raised for 11 years was > > some kind of "freak", shipped off to some *special* school? > > I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but what about them saying Harry > went to St. Brutus's School for Incurably Criminal Boys? With their need to > be 'normal' why would they pretend Harry was 'an incurably criminal boy'? In > this day and age one would probably come to the conclusion that Harry had > been influenced by his environment if they believed he went to St. Brutus's. > Though I suppose in comparison to him being a wizard it's not as disgraceful > to the Dursleys. > > ~Cassie~ It also encourages people to avoid him, and it would help to explain any "aberrant" behavior. They already know he's NOT normal, and they're petrified that he'll do something freakish - which he has, though not purposely - so they set up the explanation beforehand. -C.K. clicketykeys From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 1 21:03:15 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:03:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady Message-ID: <41.2772fc62.2b1bd313@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47543 In a message dated 12/1/2002 2:53:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, judyshapiro at directvinternet.com writes: > And Monika replied: > >I will agree on > >this. Okay, those portraits seem to have feelings, but I still > >rather consider them as "objects". > then Judy Serenity replied: > Are you sure you want that as your philosophy? If things that have > feelings can be considered objects, with which one can do as one > pleases, then what objection can be given when Lucius treats house > elves, and even non-magical humans, as objects to be tortured for fun? > Now i say: Well, there is a big difference between House elves et.al. and the pictures. The Fat Lady has feelings, but there is no reference to her being able to feel pain. The Slashing seems to have cut the Fat Lady, but not hurt her. The reason she's hiding is because she's ashamed of being disfigured like that. Now, I agree that it is rather cruel to slash the painting, and it does harm the Fat Lady emotionally, but it does seem to be a superficial harm, she gets back to her old self in a little bit after Filch patches her up(I don't have my canon with me so I cannot be exact, sorry). I think that the Slashing was a "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs" thing for Sirius; what's temporary damage to a painting compared to the possible deaths of the innocent Gryffendors at the hands of Pettigrew? -scheherazade, whose short posts somehow come out longwinded anyway [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 20:53:02 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:53:02 -0000 Subject: Basilisk/Petrification Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47544 I'm just bubbling over with questions today, so I think I'll de-lurk... A question about the basilisk, petrification, etc.: If you wear glasses, and see the basilisk through the lenses of the glasses, do you die? It would seem to me that you would only be petrified, just as you would be if you looked at it in a mirror or through a camera lens. But Moaning Myrtle was shown, at least in the movie, as wearing glasses. I need to go back to the book to find out whether she really does wear them. Any insights on this? Strix From kethlenda at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 21:03:39 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Kethlenda) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:03:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) In-Reply-To: <1038773185.25923.6617.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20021201210339.21712.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47545 I've noticed several people discussing the "witch hunts" in which the accused Death Eaters were put on trial, and the fact that several characters have been condemned to Azkaban on very little evidence. It brings to mind a question I've had ever since I first read GoF. After the fall of Voldemort, it was difficult to tell who had really followed him, who was innocent, and who was Imperius'ed. Yet it is in that same book that the Veritaserum plays a major role in the plot. Why didn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to the accused Death Eaters, and get around the whole problem of trying to figure out whether they had acted of their own free will? I've come up with a couple of possible answers: (1) It's an accidental plot hole. (2) Only Snape knows how to make it, and either he didn't know how to make it yet at that time, or else was not trusted with such an important matter. (3) Some high muckety-mucks in the MOM didn't *want* the whole truth told, because they were afraid their own dirty laundry would be aired. Any thoughts? Strix __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From twileen at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 21:16:18 2002 From: twileen at yahoo.com (Twileen Janeen) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:16:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Humanizing Myrtle and the nature of Ghost life (was Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021201211618.17525.qmail@web14508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47546 --- shane dunphy wrote: > Myrtle's living in the > toilet, spending time > down the U-Bend in the pipe, and even allowing > herself to be flushed out > into the lake (amid the detritus deposited from > above) is certainly a > parrallel of this type of behaviour pattern. Could > it be that her death, > right in the midst of adolescence, has left her with > some unresolved issues? We often only see Myrtle as sort of comic relief, and we gloss over how tormented she really must be. But just imagine being killed and coming back as a ghost as a teenager. She hasn't experienced any of the joys of passing into adulthood (first kiss, first love etc.), and she is stuck wafting around thinking about that. She got to live a little by following Olive Hornby around for several years, but that was forced to end. It makes me wonder if Myrtle will have a large role in revealing the nature of an afterlife as a ghost. Is there anyway you can stop being a ghost? NHNick showed us that ghosts can't die again, but perhaps there is some other way to provide rest for the dead? -twileen __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From beatle_girl176 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 21:17:25 2002 From: beatle_girl176 at yahoo.com (beatle_girl176) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:17:25 -0000 Subject: Draco: [was Dudley and] Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47547 > > Moonstruck wrote: > > > > > It's my great hope that at this point, we'll begin to > > > see Draco's personality turn more toward Snape. I have been watching this thread for several days now and I have a theory that may not of been discussed before(even though it is highly likely). What if Snape was Draco's godfather? That would explain the 'bond' between Draco and Snape, but also give Snape the freedom not to neccisarily agree with Lucius. Snape and Lucius were in the same social circle at one time, both were slytherins and have some similar personality traits. If Snape was Draco's godfather, he would also be in on some interesting information, such as some of Lucius's illegal collection of voldermort items. I really have any cannon proof for this, but it could possibly explain a few things if it does appear in future books. *Waves hello to all and hopes that her first post is alright* ShutterSmurf From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Dec 1 21:30:48 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:30:48 -0000 Subject: Spotting Magic (was: Revisiting The Decree) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47548 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fer Mendoza" wrote: > If the ministry "spotted" someone doing magic in "the > burrows", for example, I think they wouldn't be able to determine if > it was Arthur, Molley or one of their underage kids. I wonder how > they do it ("spotting" magic), though. Any thoughts on this? Presumably there is a spell, or something like Moody's Dark Detectors. Whatever it is, it seems like something that would be difficult and/or very expensive to do for the entire wizarding population. If it were a practical possibility for the MOM to surveille all magic, one imagines that Voldemort would never have got started, Sirius Black would have been recaptured rapidly, Little Hangleton would have become a focus of great interest at the beginning of GOF, and so forth. That Hermione, Fred and George and others are able to do magic with impunity appears to fit in with this view. It has always seemed plausible to me that the detection of the hover charm was because Harry is the subject of especial vigilance - either that or Dobby had a hand in it to ensure the Dursleys would be especially angry and forbid Harry to go to Hogwarts David From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 1 21:34:17 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:34:17 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) Message-ID: <30.320578ea.2b1bda59@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47549 In a message dated 12/1/2002 2:11:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, Malady579 at hotmail.com writes: > Scheherazade (gracious that is a mouthful) wrote: > > >I have a completely different original reading of this. I thought > >that Dumbledore left the mirror for Harry to find because he wanted > >him to see his family in it. Dumbledore knew that having a family > >was Harry's deepest desire, and he wanted to be able to tell Harry > >that he shouldn't waste away wishing for his family, like the men in > >front of the Mirror of Erised, and should, instead, move on with his > >new life with his friends. I have such a sappy theory... > > Hey, sappy can be good. It is a kind thing for Dumbledore to do > teaching Harry to not dwell on what can never be changed. I have two > problems with it though. > > Why the mirror and would that be an unneccesary stone security risk? > > 1. Why show Harry at that time? The mirror was *supposed* to be > hiding the stone and really it might of been at that time. So, > Dumbledore magiced, because I assume he would not carry it, up to the > third floor just to let Harry see his parents? He could of gotten > pictures together like Hagrid did and let the boy have a picture book. > Dumbledore could then of hid in Harry's dorm and popped out to teach > the same lesson when Harry spend hours looking at the pictures. It > would of been less risk too. Bring the mirror out of the maze was > jeopardizing the stone if it was in there. Actually if it was not, > the stone would not of been as safe as it was in the mirror, so I > guess the stone was in jeopardy anyway. And now for my far-out, newly-developed, plot-hole-riddled responce: Maybe the mirror was origionally not supposed to be in the maze, but, because Harry found it, and showed it to Ron, Dumbledore decided to move it somewhere where it could not be found on accident. The heavy security around the third floor corridor may have been a red herring (this ties in to the possibility that Dumbledore suspected Quirrel or one of his staff from the beginning). Maybe the tests were really a trap after all. The potions puzzle may have been a lie, with the 'correct' drink only letting you go through the fire once; neither Quirrel nor Harry go back through the fire on their own steam. Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd need... > > Ok so I managed to put my two points into that one. Oh well. I just > don't buy the idea that Dumbledore thought 'hey this mirror that I am > using to hid a very valuable magic item could help with showing young > Harry how to no be wrapped up in impossible dreams. Let me borrow it > for a moment.' He had other reasons behind that little lesson. well, I don't think that was his whole intention, but maybe he was making the best of the situation? Actually, now that i've written it out, I really favor my "Trials as a red herring" theory... I think I shall even give it an acronym, I like it so much half an hour passes Ok, I am bad at this acronym thing... if anyone else agrees with my theory or would just like to make some acronyms, go ahead and take a stab... > > > Scheherazade wrote about obstacles: > >All of these things are qualities that can be expected in a > >Deatheater. They are certainly all things that Voldemort himself > >possesses, or he would not have gotten as powerful as he did. > > You think so? True someone could have *all* those qualities, but it > is highly unlikely. Generally people specialize in a certain area. I > know I would of been stopped at the chess board. I'm a defensive > person not offensive. Most would not be fast enough to get the key. > Then there is the logic which few people have let alone wizards have. > So, I think the obstacles were actually a fair unknown defense. Just > that when one learns what they are, they can practice for them. We > know Quirrell was a part of the set up phase, so he could of practiced > how to get past each phase. I, too, would have been crushed at the chess level, I am no good at that game. I guess my statement that any witch or wizard could have gotten through was a bit to broad. But I still maintain that the tests would not stand a chance against a wizard of Voldemort's caliber or, given that Dumbledore does not know of vapormort and Quirrelmort, even the High ranking DEs. I think these people would be able to make it through the tests in some way, if not easily. -Scheherazade, sometimes called Sche for short *g* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Dec 1 21:52:54 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:52:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: <84.35db361.2b1bdeb6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47550 Sorry, it's taken a couple of days for me to get around to this. Pip: > Abigail: > >In other words, if MD is never addressed by the books and I go to > >see JKR and ask her whether she had any MD-like thoughts in the > >back of her mind when she wrote the text and she gives me a strange > >look and tells me that I'm crazy, that *still* won't invalidate > >MAGIC DISHWASHER as an interpretation of the text. > > Pip: > Well, it would for me, frankly. And as the creator of the theory, I > think I'm allowed a say in what invalidates it. Well, that kind of depends on your opinion of authorial intent, whether it is of any meaning or not, doesn't it? ;-) (And I mean the intent of the authors of theories as much as that of the authors of books.) I'm the first to admit that I don't understand the finer points of MD, so this is probably completely wrong, but there's something I don't get. If you regarded MD invalidated by what JKR said, wouldn't that mean that you were taking into account authorial intent? Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking? If JKR's authorial intent could theoretically retrospectively *invalidate* MD, why, if I understand correctly, has it been sugggested that it is unfair *now* to use other 'metathinking' critical tools when evaluating the theory? To quote Grey Wolf: >>I want to make this perfectly clear, because I have the feeling that people have been misunderstanding me: I don't like metathinking myself, especially against MAGIC DISHWASHER, which is based in internal evidence (and thus it is not Fair Play), but there is *nothing* wrong with metathinking per-se (and I hope I've never implied anything else).<< If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's authorial intent matter one jot? OTOH, would it be unfair for me to suggest that I disputed what I *think* is the whole basis of MD on the grounds that books, particularly adventure/mystery/thriller type books frequently depend on the coming together of all sorts of apparent coincidences and chains of events of the most improbable nature. It's just literary convention (and convenience) and does not imply any orchestrating hand in the background but that of the author. Grey Wolf: >>All MAGIC DISHWASHER tries to do is explain what has happened so far, from the most rational point of view possible... << And the above, that it is JKR, not Dumbledore, who is orchestrating events is *my* most rational point of view. Or have I misunderstood this whole metathinking business? ~Eloise ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every time we look at it we see a different hue. (Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Sun Dec 1 22:01:05 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:01:05 EST Subject: Leading into Temptation/the Light that Failed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47551 Melody points out; >>Do you not find it the least bit curious that Quirrell just *happened* to wander to Albania of all places and just *happened* to find Voldemort. But my views aside, you are saying that Dumbledore knew Voldemort was in Albania, and Quirrell did not. << Not really. Quirrel had been at Hogwarts, either as student or already as teacher during Voldy's absence. (his casual reference to the mutual loathing between Snape and James Potter suggests that he was at school for at least a few years during the same period as Snape and the marauders.) It is quite possible that Dumbledore, who openly states that he does not believe that Voldemort has been totally destroyed, keeps his staff apprised of the reports from Albania. One snag in all the Quirrell theories is that we do not know a lot of facts about the man and Hagrid is an unreliable witness. So is Voldemort, who states that Quirrell was already a teacher at Dumbledore's school when he caught him, but I think this was probably the truth. Hagrid confirms that Quirrell had taught on the basis of theoretical knowlege before taking time off to get field experience. Voldemort also refers to Quirrell (in GoF) as young, foolish and gullible. I suspect that we might be getting a [possible] parallel case/bit of foreshadowing here. I see Quirrell as being Percy Weasley's "shadow twin" much in the way that the marauders shadow current Hogwarts students, and Riddle's circumstances shadow Harry's. (And very possibly Quirrell was yet another ex Head Boy -- that would bring us up to four, so far.) Very bright, very upstanding, very brave, quite ambitious and much too easliy sold a bill of goods once he gets beyond the walls of Hogwarts and out in the real world. I don't believe Hagrid's tale of the vampires and the hag. I think Quirrell was aquitting himself very nicely in his field testing, and got overconfident. He decided to check out the area that Voldemort was allegedly holed up in, in the name of "research". And met more than he had bargained f or. Voldemort hadn't risked possessing humans in his ten-year exile, for fear of Aurors, so Quirrell wasn't aware that that was on the menu. He found himself up against something too big for him to handle and lost. Voldemort got him, body and soul. And he gave up. Completely. He lost every bit of fight in him, right there and then. Melody says; >>Voldie did not "impose" himself onto Quirrell in the forest and possess him. Quirrell had his choices to make, and he chose to be in the league of Voldemort. That, in my opinion, makes him ever-so-evil. I also think Dumbledore knows that Voldie cannot possess people without this consent.<< There we will have to agree to disagree. I think he can take possession as soon as he gets his victim is too confused or distracted to put up an effective fight. I agree that it wasn't quite the *same* form of possession as Diary!Riddle's possession of Ginny Weasley. Quirrell was completely consious of his actions throughout. But given that it was the same underlying wizard who possessed both of them I suspect that the two cases were probably more similar than not. Mind you, I agree that the methods and actions which he took while possessed were his own. Voldemort ordered this and that with a "make it so" compulsion and it was up to Quirrell to figure it out. But the direction and the compulsions which drove him were Voldemort's. He might just as well have been kissed by a dementor. He had no will of his own left. (Note: I see another parallel in action here. Looking back, doesn't Quirrell's passive acceptandce of enslavement belong somewhere in the same continum as Dobby's most unwilling bondage and Peter's [grudging] obedience under [continual] protest?) >>Um, JOdel. They did let him know. It was *his* troll before the Snape's logic puzzle. So, he knew the series of obstacles. He knew where the stone was. He just could not get past Fluffy.<< Exactly. And just WHO had the key to getting past Fluffy, hm? Can't make the problem look *too* easy, after all. He got that information out of Hagrid by Easter. Just as anyone might expect. But he didn't *use* the information. He sat on it until Dumbledore flushed him out by conspicuously being "called away to London". >>After the cheating and rough housing of Quidditch and the attempt of Malfoy to get The Three in trouble over the dragon egg, can you really say Slytherin won those points honestly?<< Well, no. But it was still tactless, and the previous house points lost had been accepted as valid by all the staff. From jodel at aol.com Sun Dec 1 22:01:07 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:01:07 EST Subject: Snape and the Lucius (forget the Potters) Message-ID: <12f.1c693d3e.2b1be0a3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47552 Jack wrote: >In GoF, Voldie summons the Deatheaters, and Lucius is there. He >certainly must notice that Snape isn't. Voldie states that of the >ones that are missing, two are at Hogwarts: one is coward (Kakarov); >one is lost forever and must die (Snape). If Snape was maintaining a >front for Lucius, I wonder what Lucius is thinking now? Actually, Voldemort only stated that his *faithful* servant is at Hogwarts. Lucius would probably have assumed that he was speaking of Snape. The identies of the other two he may have no idea of. At that point. By the time Voldemort turns them loose the news of Karkaroff's fight will be out. The capture and Kissing of Barty Crouch Jr will probably be hush-hush information, (shake's the public's confidence in the security of Azkaban, don't you know...) so it might be a day or so before he is able to get that little tidbit out of Fudge. All in all it may be a few days before Lucius has all the apparant pieces of the puzzle. By the time Draco gets home from Hogwar ts he is probably going to find himself facing an inquisition from his father over just what the hell went on at school this past year. And then Snape may find himself with some hard questions to answer. Covering his tracks to Lucius is a whole different situation from covering them to Voldemort, and covering them to the Slytherin students next year (should he live so long, which I imagine will be the case) is even smpler. In Lucius's case, he can easily invoke his own long-standing feud with the Marauders -- which Peter unquestionably *was* and play the ancient enemies/rivals card, do the "I blew it --but how was I to know?" number over Quirrell, and give whatever story about circumstances being against him for not being able to show up when called. If he is clever enough he may be able to interject some degree of uncertainly into Lucius's reading of events. Possibly enough to have Lucius play the "Voice of Reason" to his Master about allowing Snape a bit more rope to hang himself with. -JOdel From MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM Sun Dec 1 22:01:57 2002 From: MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM (mitchbailey82) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 22:01:57 -0000 Subject: Basilisk/Petrification Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47553 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Strix" wrote: > I'm just bubbling over with questions today, so I think I'll de- lurk... > > A question about the basilisk, petrification, etc.: > If you wear glasses, and see the basilisk through the lenses of > the glasses, do you die? It would seem to me that you would > only be petrified, just as you would be if you looked at it in a > mirror or through a camera lens. But Moaning Myrtle was > shown, at least in the movie, as wearing glasses. I need to go > back to the book to find out whether she really does wear them. > Any insights on this? > > Strix Me: I had always presumed that Myrtle had taken her glasses off to dry her eyes when she saw the basilisk (don't know how I made that assumption - maybe its because it's hard to dry your eyes whilst wearing glasses) - however re-reading the scene where Harry asks her how she died no comment is made on this although the reason she is in her bathroom in the first place is because Olive made fun of her glasses. However it is said that she unlocked the toilet door before she came face to face with the basilisk - so I would presume (although it depends on how bad her eye sight is/was)that she would put her glasses back on to do this (if she had taken them off in the first place). As to whether seeing the basilisk through glasses would kill you or not Harry when in was in the chamber deffinately thought it would - but then again he probably wouldn't have know either way. Michelle From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sun Dec 1 22:09:06 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:09:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47554 In a message dated 12/1/2002 5:06:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, kethlenda at yahoo.com writes: > I've noticed several people discussing the "witch > hunts" in which the accused Death Eaters were put on > trial, and the fact that several characters have been > condemned to Azkaban on very little evidence. It > brings to mind a question I've had ever since I first > read GoF. > > After the fall of Voldemort, it was difficult to tell > who had really followed him, who was innocent, and who > was Imperius'ed. Yet it is in that same book that the > Veritaserum plays a major role in the plot. Why > didn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to > the accused Death Eaters, and get around the whole > problem of trying to figure out whether they had acted > of their own free will? I've come up with a couple of > possible answers: > > (1) It's an accidental plot hole. > (2) Only Snape knows how to make it, and either he > didn't know how to make it yet at that time, or else > was not trusted with such an important matter. > (3) Some high muckety-mucks in the MOM didn't *want* > the whole truth told, because they were afraid their > own dirty laundry would be aired. > > Any thoughts? Maybe it wasn't available then...like the wolfsbane potion. ~Cassie (hopes she won't get killed for the one liner ^^;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 1 22:11:39 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:11:39 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Humanizing Myrtle and the nature of Ghost life (was Why i... Message-ID: <111.1c7d148f.2b1be31b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47555 > --- shane dunphy wrote: > >Myrtle's living in the > >toilet, spending time > >down the U-Bend in the pipe, and even allowing > >herself to be flushed out > >into the lake (amid the detritus deposited from > >above) is certainly a > >parrallel of this type of behaviour pattern. Could > >it be that her death, > >right in the midst of adolescence, has left her with > >some unresolved issues? > Shane also wrote some things about the Freudian Stages of sexual development, namely that Myrtle was stuck at the Anal stage of development. Originally I was Just going to leave that well alone, because I was not going to get into what could have possibly caused an adolescent girl to still be stuck in the Anal stage... (I just realized that I should probably reference this for everybody: the three stages of development, according to Freud, are the oral (age 0-1.5), the anal-sadistic stage(1.5-3), and phallic (aged 4-5) stages, a latency stage (aged 5-puberty) and the genital stage (beyond puberty). for more info, the site I used was psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa111500a.htm So, even though I was not, origionally, going to go into what could have trapped Myrtle at the Anal stage, I found myslef thinking of Steven King's book, _Carrie_. *hears the groans of assembled list-persons* I know, I know, it's a little off the wall, but there could be some Carrie-esque issues that could have caused Myrtle's repression. I Quote from the article mentioned above: > > Anal-Retentive Personality: If a child receives excessive pressure and > punishment from parents during toilet training, he will experience anxiety > over bowl movements and take pleasure in being able to withhold such > functions. Individuals who fail to progress pass this stage are obsessively > clean and > orderly, and intolerant of those who aren't. They may also be very careful, > stingy, withholding, obstinate, meticulous, conforming and > passive-aggressive withholding? obstinate? passive-aggressive? I'd say that our Myrtle does have these traits. She is very obstinate in her persual of Olive until she was forcibly removed, she does withhold information on a regular basis, only telling what she knows if she is first flattered into revealing it, which also plays into passive agressiveness (remember when she was talking with Harry in the prefect's bathroom in GoF?) Anyway, back to the Carrie analogy: This is a streach, but maybe Myrtle's magical abilities were frowned on by her parents. They may have started showing while she was still in the anal stage of development, and was punished severely for it (like carrie) this may also account for her need to be accepted by her peers, if she wasn't by her family. I know that this list was fighting about it a while ago, but I do think that there is enough cannonical evidence to assume that Myrtle was Muggle-born... -Scheherazade, talkative today with random ideas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 1 22:38:27 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:38:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady Message-ID: <149.3ccc86f.2b1be963@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47556 I wrote: > >>> The characters in the paintings do appear to carry out many > complex behaviors, but we do not have proof that they experience > emotions and thoughts in the same way we do.... > > What could possibly constitute proof of emotion? We are encountering > a problem much discussed in philosophy, the "problem of other minds." > Since emotions and thoughts are private, there is no way to prove > that *anyone* else has them, even other humans. Me: Well, that's all true, but I wasn't referring to philosophical proof, which as you correctly implied, we can never have. I meant canon proof, as in JKR stating in the books that the painting people are really alive or human, and that hasn't been stated. The point I was trying to make is that Sirius slashing the Fat Lady's portait can't really be said to be a character inconsistency in an otherwise "good" person, because the Fat Lady's portrait is an object, not a person. Judy again: > Figures from the paintings move around from picture to picture, > visiting each other and even having parties. I'd say that the books > strongly imply that at least some of the paintings, including the Fat > Lady, have emotions. For example, Violet, from a painting in the > anteroom off the Great Hall, is described as being indignant, and the > Fat Lady tries to soothe her. (GoF, ch. 17.) Me again: Yes, I see your point, but my Sims characters act that way too. They come visit each other, talk about their interests. When one is in a bad mood, another comforts them. When one gets too friendly with another one's wife, the other one punches him in the nose. But I know they don't have real feelings (or I'd feel much worse when they drown in the swimming pool). I just really think the portrait people are more comparable to my Sims than to me. The portraits, I assume, are created by wizard artists, and wizards are powerful, but not gods. I don't think they would have the ability to create a life like that. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Dec 1 22:43:58 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:43:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Basilisk/Petrification Question References: Message-ID: <000a01c2998b$23fbbec0$ac9dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 47557 Michelle wrote: I had always presumed that Myrtle had taken her glasses off to dry her eyes when she saw the basilisk (don't know how I made that assumption - maybe its because it's hard to dry your eyes whilst wearing glasses) - however re-reading the scene where Harry asks her how she died no comment is made on this although the reason she is in her bathroom in the first place is because Olive made fun of her glasses. However it is said that she unlocked the toilet door before she came face to face with the basilisk - so I would presume (although it depends on how bad her eye sight is/was)that she would put her glasses back on to do this (if she had taken them off in the first place). As to whether seeing the basilisk through glasses would kill you or not Harry when in was in the chamber deffinately thought it would - but then again he probably wouldn't have know either way. I'd never actually thought about the glasses stopping the basilisk from killing. However, once it kept coming up I imagined that Myrtle had probably looked down to unlock the door, at which point her glasses may have slid down. Then when she opened the door, lifted her eyes up so that she was looking over her glasses. I wear glasses, and I do this all the time. So she would've still had her glasses on, but looked the basilisk in the eye by looking over them. Richelle ******************************************************************** "May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out." ---- Lady Galadriel, The Fellowship of the Ring ******************************************************************** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From urbana at charter.net Sun Dec 1 21:50:07 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:50:07 -0000 Subject: The Hogwarts Library and search engine... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47558 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > The easiest way to find anything in a library is something that we have > yet to see Harry doing: asking the librarian! That is what Pince is > there for, after all. However, Harry and co. seem possesed by a latent > distrust towards figures in authority and prefer trying to find the > info on their own (I can't blame them... I used to feel the same at > their age). .... > Now, how does Pince find the information herself? We should ask Lexicon > Steve this (he should know, if anyone), but I have the feeling that a > librarian's job is to know where everything is. And there could be > spells for searching books by content, only they don't come in the > reglamentary school books, and are relatively unimportant, and thus > Hermione has not heard of them yet. > Hogwarts appears to be completely free of *almost* all Muggle conveniences and inventions-- with the notable and noted exception of bathrooms! -- so I think we can assume it's also free of the Internet, the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress classification system ;-) That being the case, it would definitely fall to Madame Pince to know exactly where to find every bit of information in the library...which would require her to have both instant recall and an encyclopedic memory. So perhaps Professor Flitwick is responsible for charming her with such knowledge? Or perhaps, just as Hermione will one day do, she has read and memorized every book in the Hogwarts library. Anne U (who used to think the traffic on my 700-member lists was bad...) From hartma44 at pilot.msu.edu Mon Dec 2 00:00:09 2002 From: hartma44 at pilot.msu.edu (Emily H.) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:00:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Basilisk/Petrification Question References: <000a01c2998b$23fbbec0$ac9dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <016d01c29995$c792f8f0$410110ac@wkslnng238> No: HPFGUIDX 47559 This is my first post, but thank you all for allowing me to lurk and listen in. Regarding petrification, I had always assumed it was the fact that the basilisk's gaze was reflected off something that made it non-lethal. For Hermione and Penelope, it was reflected off a mirror; for Colin, the gaze passed through the lens and reflected into the eyepiece. If one was wearing glasses, they wouldn't reflect the gaze, it would pass right through the glass. So I suppose the logical extension of that theory is that if you were standing next to a basilisk (ick) facing a window and caught his gaze in reflection, you'd just be petrified. But if you were on the other side of the window and caught his eye, you'd be dead. Does that make sense? Emily [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Sun Dec 1 20:57:17 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Kethlenda) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 12:57:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Defenses of Stone tailored to the Hogwarts kids In-Reply-To: <1038773185.25923.6617.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20021201205717.1629.qmail@web40010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47560 GreyWolf wrote: Quite some time back, someone proposed that > question, and that put > several people to thinking. And it got even better, > because someone > pointed out that, in fact, those "defenses" seem > especially tailored to > Harry and his friends (including Neville, who was > conviniently awake > that night and that could've been convinced to go > with them instead of > totally petrifying him). Oh my Gods! You're right! I never thought of that before. I'll bet you a couple of Galleons that the first obstacle, the plant, was designed for Neville. Herbology is his forte! Dumbledore must have assumed he would go with them. *smacks herself upside the head for not thinking of that before* Strix, unabashed Neville Longbottom fan __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 2 00:00:08 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:00:08 EST Subject: How reliable is Veritaserum? (wasRe:Another question about the "Witch Hunts") Message-ID: <24.309c8105.2b1bfc88@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47561 Strix raises a good question: "Why didn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to the accused Death Eaters, and get around the whole problem of trying to figure out whether they had acted of their own free will?" and I, since I am in such a chatty mood today, respond: Veritaserum has always bugged me. How do they know they get the right story and not just a very biased account of events? How do they know that they are not getting an altered memory? especially if it happened a long time ago, like Barty Jr's account of his escape from Azcaban. What if their mind has been tampered with, would Sirius give an accurate account of his days before Azcaban? Or has the dementor's effects changed that? People can convince themselves that a false memory is real, can veritaserum detect that? But, the real reason I think that veritaserum is not used in trials is the bias factor. For example, If we gave Snape Veritaserum and asked him about The Prank: "Sirius tried to kill me" (or something to that extent) we give Sirius the Veritaserum and ask about the prank: "It was a joke, he was trying to figure out where lupin went, so i told him," (or something like that) so, the testimony would be tainted by what a person believes happened. That is why I think the MoM doesn't use the serum. -Scheherazade, off to have dinner! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Audra1976 at aol.com Mon Dec 2 00:14:19 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:14:19 EST Subject: Snape and the Boggart class--Snape's fear Message-ID: <113.1b616b29.2b1bffdb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47562 bethg2 at yahoo.com writes: > When I the boggart scene I felt Snape had another reason entirely for > leaving the room quickly. There is no way that Severus Snape would > want his greatest fear revealed to his students, or anyone else for > that matter. It doesn't really matter what Snape Theory you subscribe > to for this to be true. Whether his biggest fear was Voldemort, a > dementor, Crouch as a MOM judge, or anything else you can imagine it > would reveal too much about him for Snape, or JKR, to want it out in > the open at this point. > Good job, Beth--great minds must think alike. I just went through all the follow-up posts to see if anyone else suggested that before I posted. It was certainly the first thought that came to my mind as to why Snape did not want to be there when the boggart was released. Has anyone considered that Snape's biggest fear may be Lupin as a werewolf? I'm sure seeing the werewolf was quite traumatizing for young Snape, and our biggest fears do tend to stem from some childhood experience (e.g. Ron's fear of spiders). But as someone pointed out, the original question is why he was in the staffroom, not why he left. I don't have any great theories for this. Possibly Snape went in there to sit so he *could* be alone, thinking no one else would come in there because of the boggart. Or, it would make sense (I think someone suggested this already) that they wanted one staff member at least to stay in there and make sure the boggart didn't escape, and as Snape has a free period during that time, he was asked to guard it. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 00:54:32 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 16:54:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FILK] GOLDEN SNITCHES, BLUDGER SURE HAD YOUR NAME, and THE END Message-ID: <20021202005432.48439.qmail@web40309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47563 ****************************************************** You all may remember, not too long ago, our little tribute to the Beatle's Abby Road and COS? Well, here we go again...finishing up side 2 with these three songs: _Golden Snitches_ to the tune of _Golden Slumbers_ by Gail Bohacek _That Bludger Sure Had Your Name_ to the tune of _Carry That Weight_ by Lilac _The End_ to the tune of _The End_ by Lilac ******************************************************** Dedicated to All Beatle Freaks! --Gail B. Dedicated to Frankie, Ravenclaw Chaser and Maria --Lilac ******************************************************** Once there was a team of Quidditch players Once there was a team, for Gryffindor C'mon, Harry Potter, you must fly Watch out for that Bludger coming by Golden Snitch is within sight Reach your hand out, hold on tight C'mon Harry Potter, you must try But that Bludger keeps coming by Once there was a team of Quidditch players Once there was a team, for Gryffindor C'mon Harry Potter, you must try But that Bludger keeps coming by ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boy, that Bludger sure had your name Sure had your name upon it. Boy, let Lockhart fix all your bones Poof! No more bones? Oh, darn it! DOBBY (to Harry in the Hospital Wing): Harry Potter must go back home Dobby had to close the wall to Sir's train And Dobby gave that rogue bludger its bad brain, Please go home! HARRY: Elf, you'd better get outta here Get outta here before long! Or, when all my bones reappear, bones reappear, I'll kill ya! ------------------------------------------------------- (after Dobby has been freed) HARRY: Dobby, one thing...please, please nevermore try to save my life! DOBBY: Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir... ------------------------------------------------------------------ HARRY: And in the End The sock I tossed ain't equal to the pain he caused. Oh, well... ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Professor, can you show me that blocking thing again?" Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry!" "What, drop my wand?" --Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Mon Dec 2 00:55:34 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:55:34 -0500 Subject: Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47564 Susan asked: > Why is the bathroom so important in Potterverse? First, I'd like to compliment Shane and Scheherazade for their Freudian analyses of the plumbing imagery. I'd been meditating something like this myself, but they've done it more sophisticatedly than I could. Still, I've come up with two ideas of my own, each focusing a bit more on the theme of the books than on the psychology of the characters themselves. For starters, the dark side: let's take the theme of the return of the repressed past. The Wizarding World as a whole has a problem with a repressed past which they haven't dealt with -- Joe Average Wizard can't even utter Voldemort's name -- and it's coming back to haunt them in a big way. This is analogous to the 'anal' qualities that Shane and Scheherazade have mentioned -- an individual (or society) is 'uptight' because they have stuffed down some unpleasant repressed issues that they cannot 'digest' properly. We see a few examples of plumbing imagery functioning this way. For instance, Salazar's basilisk. It's natural that the creature would come from the bowels of the castle, slink through the plumbing, emerge through the bathroom and manifest itself with spilled water. The basilisk is Hogwarts' dirty little repressed secret: the school was founded in part upon a basis of anti-mudblood prejudice. This problem has been brushed off, in the form of Salazar leaving the school and later history simply relegating this episode to the dustbin of history, but in fact the problem has not gone away. And neither has the anti-Muggle, anti-mudblood prejudice which can be re-ignited at the drop of a hat, not just in families like the Malfoys, but within ordinary people like those participating in the QWC riot. So this would be an example of undigested (and filthy) issues re-erupting. Another example of The-Substance-Hitting-The-Fan would be when Sirius confronts Peter right after the Potters have been killed. You remember Peter, in order to escape, blasted a *sewer* line. This blown-apart sewer symbolizes a lot of unpleasant hidden secrets erupting in Sirius' face: not only has he picked the wrong friend to trust, but this 'friend' is in the process of framing him for multiple murder. If we ever find out that Sirius trusted Peter over Remus due to some undigested anti-werewolf prejudice of his own, this will further hammer in the message that the WW in general is punished with the very issues that they refuse to fully process. Of course Vapormort himself is like the smelly, gaseous residue of a mess that just won't dissipate on its own, and yes we do know he gave off a foul stench in that form. I suppose his eventual reformed self emerging from a cauldron can also be seen as a version of a backed-up toilet overflowing its contents. Then there's the light side: yes, the playful side of poo. For starters, JKR obviously has a ribald sense of humor and understands perfectly well that children (and inner children, like mine) find gross-out humor hilarious. Hence episodes involving troll boogers, vomiting slugs and Ron' s appropriately anal wisecrack about Lavender's Uranus. Not to mention a certain goat... Anyway, one of the other themes of the book is that the Wizarding World is much more playful and open to a wider array of sensory/sensual experience than the boring, uptight (and yes, anal) Muggle world. So you see this in the nonchalance that the characters have towards physical pain, the freaky forms of certain curses (Furnunculus, Ron's unfortunate slug spell), and most of all in appetite. JKR's feasts are an absolute riot of the digestive tract; it's only natural that a character should find themselves in the bathroom once in while. Bernie Botts Every Flavor Beans represent this a little too well -- their range of flavors varies from the yummy to the downright scandalous. And it's all part of the fun. Heck, even Dumbledore isn't too proud to expound on the necessity of chamber pots. This sets up a contrast to the Muggle world: the Dursleys are nothing if not anal -- hence the way that Vernon and Dudley are always depicted as about to explode from either anger or food itself. And they are characterized above all by their refusal to admit to the Wizarding World -- it's their insistence to keep Harry's talents and the truth about him bottled up inside that marks them as so hideous. In the end, the answer of how to deal with the biggest problems of the WW might also come from seeking below the surface, in the underbelly of meaning. This could be the symbolism of the prefects' bathroom that Harry utilizes to hear the Merpeoples's song. The Merpeople themselves live in what appears to be Hogwarts' own sewer; they aren't flushed away, but instead function perfectly well within their own culture, normally hidden and incomprehensible to the average wizard. So it's by plumbing that particular depth that Harry gets the necessary clue to his task. I expect that the clues to Harry's eventual task of defeating LV will also involve a process of...looking deep inside. :-) So I think JKR is advocating that we relax a little. Deal with those issues instead of trying to hide them. Enjoy the crazy range of human experience when it's harmless and actually try to examine it and cleanse it when it's harmful. Bet you never thought examining toilets could be this educational. ~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 01:01:35 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:01:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Basilisk/Petrification Question References: Message-ID: <00a601c2999e$5d03ae40$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47565 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Strix" wrote: > > I'm just bubbling over with questions today, so I think I'll de- > lurk... > > > > A question about the basilisk, petrification, etc.: > > If you wear glasses, and see the basilisk through the lenses of > > the glasses, do you die? It would seem to me that you would > > only be petrified, just as you would be if you looked at it in a > > mirror or through a camera lens. But Moaning Myrtle was > > shown, at least in the movie, as wearing glasses. I need to go > > back to the book to find out whether she really does wear them. > > Any insights on this? > > > > Strix me: I hate to get this detailed but it might depend on the camera. Some cameras (SLR or Single Lens Reflex) use mirrors and prisms to split the view that comes through the lens. Thus what you see has been reflect toward your eyes. While some cameras, usually cheaper instant cameras have a different view finder lens in these you see a different image than comes through the main lens. (That is why they are notorious for taking poor pictures) It would seem to me that a view through one of these cheaper cameras would be the same as looking through glasses. A direct view not reflected or obscured but rather focused straight at the eye. While through a better camera would be the same as seeing a reflected image. Rob From sjnhp at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 1 23:48:06 2002 From: sjnhp at yahoo.co.uk (Simon Nickerson) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:48:06 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Basilisk/Petrification Question In-Reply-To: <016d01c29995$c792f8f0$410110ac@wkslnng238> References: <000a01c2998b$23fbbec0$ac9dcdd1@istu757> <016d01c29995$c792f8f0$410110ac@wkslnng238> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47566 In message <016d01c29995$c792f8f0$410110ac at wkslnng238>, Emily H. writes >Regarding petrification, I had always assumed it was the fact that the >basilisk's gaze was reflected off something that made it non-lethal.? >For Hermione and Penelope, it was reflected off a mirror; for Colin, >the gaze passed through the lens and reflected into the eyepiece.? If >one was wearing glasses, they wouldn't reflect the gaze, it would pass >right through the glass. On the other hand, Justin saw the basilisk through Nearly Headless Nick, so it's not just about reflected light. I don't think we have enough information to answer the question, or the other related questions (what if you squint, or wear contact lenses, or see a basilisk from a long way off? What happens if two basilisks look at each other? Does a profoundly deaf person die in the presence of a crying mandrake?) [Speculation: a basilisk's eye emits rays of light of two types, type A and type B. Type A light is fairly easily absorbed, even by glass (like ultraviolet light I suppose). Type B light acts like visible light. If any type A light hits your retina, you die. If any type B light hits your retina, you get petrified, assuming you haven't already died from the type A light. Under this theory, you don't die if you're extremely myopic and are remembering to wear your specs, and you don't die if there's a handy Gryffindor ghost to absorb all the nasty type A photons for you.] The fact that Harry doesn't want to look at the basilisk's eyes doesn't prove all that much, because Harry would rather not die or be petrified. -- Simon Nickerson "I went on the Underground - " "Really?" said Mr Weasley eagerly. "Were there escapators?" From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 00:00:38 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 00:00:38 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Racism, & technology (Was: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47567 Thanks to all who replied to my earlier post (47254) ? what a wonderful list this is! :-) I'm intrigued that no-one has taken up the last point I was trying to make: Given that a major theme in the books is that racism and prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted by the ways character traits seem to run in families in the Potterverse? Although one might expect there to be family cultures which would make sibling/offspring entry into the same school House more likely, even at eleven years old I'd expect individual traumas, sibling rivalries etc to have produced differing motivational drives. (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) But it seems that bloodlines do indeed have a significance And why is it worse for Draco to call Hermione a Mudblood (CoS pg 86- 89, and elsewhere) than it is for Hagrid to say that the Malfoy's have `bad blood' (CoS pg 51)? I wonder if JKR is allowing us to accept all the anti-Slytherin comments only to turn our own assumptions against us later on... * * * Grey Wolf said (paraphrased): > it is entirely possible that the inquisition and the witch > burnings were intended against wizards, inefective as they > were (Harry writes an essay for History about the > ineffectiveness of witch burning in PoA) (Ah. Mea culpa ? I'd forgotten about that. My copy of PoA Disapparated a while ago ) Grey Wolf also said: > the "purebloods" really feel that they are the ones that should > be out in the open, with muggles hiding from them. Take into > account that "old families" tend to have an egocentric > streak, having to hide from inferiors is going to cause them > something akin to physical pain. Yes, that makes a LOT of sense ? the Malfoys' constant harping on their racial superiority, as if they have to keep on making the point, fits well with an inherited wound to their pride. Sherry Garfio said: > I would also like to add that there is a new threat today > against the Wizards: Muggle technology. Interesting. I hadn't really thought of that factor in a historical context before. Since the separation Muggles have progressed from being obviously inferior (in power) to wizards to being in many ways equal, and have also evolved more organised ways of acting together. So there is a greater potential threat now than ever, which the WW perhaps doesn't want to face ? hence the general bemusement expressed at technological devices by, for example, Hagrid and Arthur. By viewing technology as a bizarre Muggle idiosyncrasy, which as Emily F pointed out is another way of patronising Muggles, wizards can deny the threat it poses. Incidentally, IMO the technology/magic split has a major impact on the respective social structures. I reckon one of the reasons that the MoM seems so shambolic (ref earlier discussions on lackadaisical judicial procedures, etc) is that in a world where physical problems (such as building structures) can be solved by the wave of a wand, logical problem solving wasn't that important (hence Hermione's comment on wizards' lack of logic (PS/SS Chap 16)). The kind of systematic mindset necessary for efficient organisational structures just wouldn't evolve, or be valued or taught. Knowledge of psychology and political influencing skills would still be useful, however, as personality issues don't seem that different in the WW. So they end up with a bumbling bureaucracy that is weak in the face of powerful individuals. (Hmmm, maybe not so very different from us Muggles after all ;-) Sherry Garfio also said (in reply to Chthonia): C> 4) There is no physically observable difference (that we know C> of) between pureblood/halfblood/Muggle, so people aren't going to C> immediately look at someone and get a sense of `otherness' C> onto which they can project all the qualities they perceive as C> undesirable. SG> it may not be a visible difference at all. Perhaps a SG> magical person can "sense" another person's magical ability SG> or lack thereof...sometimes differences are more subtle SG> than what people in racially integrated societies perceive. I was thinking more of Muggle-born wizards here ? apologies for the confusion. So far in canon we haven't seen (IIRC?) any evidence that there is a identifiable difference in ability, appearance or culture (after having seven years to learn it at Hogwarts), save only in PS Chapter 5 where Draco says `They're just not the same, they've never been brought up to know our ways.' But I wouldn't really trust a Malfoy to give an unbiased assessment of the matter Or maybe the WW is so small that they all know everybody's family history, so no discernable difference is necessary to know who is who Chthonia (which, in reply to Grey Wolf, I pronounce "Ch-thon-ee-a" [emphasis on "thon", hard "th", short "o" and "a"], though my dictionary pronunciation guide implies that the "Ch" should be said "K" or left out altogether) From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 18:34:08 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:34:08 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Several questions about the Dursleys, the Fidelius charm and Dumbledore References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47568 Heh heh, I loved the bit in TMTMNBM (COS) when Verson falls out of the window. My theory is that the defences, while Harry is there, also protect the Dursleys. When he is not there, they can be attacked by Voldemort or any one else who wants to be rid of them. They know what happened to Lily and they definitely don't want it to happen to them. Therefore, they try to keep Harry with them. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jasonjacqui at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 00:42:28 2002 From: jasonjacqui at yahoo.com (Jacqui) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 00:42:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's vault key Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47569 That's a good thought. I still have to wonder, though, what they were kept safe for? Harry was with Lily and James. There are no other relatives. What would Dumbledore, or anyone else, be keeping all the stuff safe for? Carol Me: Trelawney's first prediction. Her first predictin must have been of the death of Lily and James...Not Harry. That would explain the reasoning behind Dumbledore having the Potter's belongings. That also gives you an inkling that Dumbledore knows why Harry wasn't killed that night. There has got to be some kind of connection between the two of them...Harry & Dumbledore...I can't quite put my finger on it though.... > (Trelawney's first prediction, perhaps?) and went to Dumbledore to > > give him Harry and several items they did not want to fall into the > DE's > > hands, but Dumbledore convinced them to hide themselves and the > baby with the > > Fidelius Charm, but James insisted he keep the stuff for some > reason. > > > > (full of holes I know) > > > > The Queen of Serpents > Me: You know last night I was actually thinking about the same thing. I was curious as to wether or not Trelawney's first prediction was actually the death of Lily and James. That would explain alot of the little things, like, James's invisibility cloak, and the vault key... Jacqui From Sunnylove0 at aol.com Mon Dec 2 01:34:43 2002 From: Sunnylove0 at aol.com (Sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:34:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Basilisk/Petrification Question Message-ID: <188.11d0ea7a.2b1c12b3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47570 In a message dated 12/1/2002 2:22:23 PM Mountain Standard Time, kethlenda at yahoo.com writes: > > A question about the basilisk, petrification, etc.: > If you wear glasses, and see the basilisk through the lenses of > the glasses, do you die? It would seem to me that you would > only be petrified, just as you would be if you looked at it in a > mirror or through a camera lens. But Moaning Myrtle was > shown, at least in the movie, as wearing glasses. I need to go > back to the book to find out whether she really does wear them. > Any insights on this? > > Strix I wonder if Myrtle took off her glasses to cry and then she hears TMR (presumably) and the basilisk, she fumbles the door open and the basilisk whacks her before she can get her glasses back on....depending on how weak Myrtle's vision is. The Queen of Serpents [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 02:07:07 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:07:07 -0000 Subject: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) In-Reply-To: <30.320578ea.2b1bda59@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47571 Sche (less a mouthful) wrote: >Maybe the mirror was origionally not supposed to be in the maze, but, >because Harry found it, and showed it to Ron, Dumbledore decided to >move it somewhere where it could not be found on accident. The heavy >security around the third floor corridor may have been a red herring >(this ties in to the possibility that Dumbledore suspected Quirrel or >one of his staff from the beginning). Maybe the tests were really a >trap after all. The potions puzzle may have been a lie, with the >'correct' drink only letting you go through the fire once; neither >Quirrel nor Harry go back through the fire on their own steam. You know I like the idea. It works with the assumptions you make, but (come on, you knew there would be a 'but' there ) really what harm was there in finding the mirror by accident? Couldn't Dumbledore just keep it there? The security was not breeched after all. Why have the mirror at the end of the obstacles at all if all you wanted to do was trap them? > Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only >enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough >to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd >need... That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people in that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) Melody From suzchiles at pobox.com Mon Dec 2 02:12:10 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:12:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's vault key In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47572 I don't know about Lily and James, but I were one of them, I'd have to anticipate that Voldemort and the DEs could come at any time and kill me and my family, even with the Fidelius Charm. For all we know, they could have willed the money and other things to Dumbledore. And, as Harry lived and his godfather was thought to be the one who betrayed them to Voldemort, Dumbledore is acting rather like an executor. Just a thought. Suzanne Carol said: > > That's a good thought. I still have to wonder, though, what they > were kept safe for? Harry was with Lily and James. There are no > other relatives. What would Dumbledore, or anyone else, be keeping > all the stuff safe for? > > Carol From Malady579 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 02:33:30 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:33:30 -0000 Subject: Leading into Temptation/the Light that Failed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47573 JOdel wrote: >One snag in all the Quirrell theories is that we do not know a lot of >facts about the man and Hagrid is an unreliable witness. So is >Voldemort, who states that Quirrell was already a teacher at >Dumbledore's school when he caught him, but I think this was probably >the truth. You brought up a very good point there. How can we trust Voldemort's word? And many do not trust Hagrid's since it seems he overstates. I want to believe Hagrid since he has never out and out lied, but I think often times he is not presented the whole truth for his own good and the good of the cause. >(And very possibly Quirrell was yet another ex Head Boy -- that would >bring us up to four, so far.) Very bright, very upstanding, very >brave, quite ambitious and much too easily sold a bill of goods once >he gets beyond the walls of Hogwarts and out in the real world. You know I agree. He does parallel Percy quite nicely, and I see those same intelligent traits in Quirrell too. Even Quirrell says in the mirror room that his head was "full of ridiculous ideas of good and evil" (PS/SS Ch17) so it is implied that he was ok until Voldie "showed him how he was wrong". He was seduced by Voldie but I don't think controled, which bring us to your next part. >Mind you, I agree that the methods and actions which he took while >possessed were his own. Voldemort ordered this and that with a "make >it so" compulsion and it was up to Quirrell to figure it out. But the >direction and the compulsions which drove him were Voldemort's. I think we will have to disagree. I see a difference between following orders and being "willed" to follow orders. Ginny was willed. She did not remember doing any of it, but only when she put the pieces together did she see what was going on. Quirrell, on the other hand, could even talk and argue with Voldie. In the mirror room, he bickered with Voldie not to show himself to Harry. Granted he did not put up a great fight, but it seems to me, at least, that Quirrell was free to do as he wished. He may of been following orders but he could decide what he wanted to do. After Voldie attached himself to Quirrell's head, Quirrell was still normal. He was completely himself and could continue with the stutter charade. He knew all that was going on and how to reach to everything. Really, he was, as any seduced person, between a rock and a hard place. Voldemort was attached to his head by then. Voldie could not torture him like he could Peter, but he seems to be able to affect him and punish him in some way for his insubordination. Quirrell may of been subject to Voldie's whim, but he placed himself there by his own choice. To relate back to Ginny, she did not know what she was doing with the diary. She was not making conscious decisions. Melody From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 2 03:22:38 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:22:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) Message-ID: <1bf.1636a375.2b1c2bfe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47574 Melody says: You know I like the idea. It works with the assumptions you make, but (come on, you knew there would be a 'but' there ) really what harm was there in finding the mirror by accident? Couldn't Dumbledore just keep it there? The security was not breeched after all. Dangit, I knew there was a dragon-sized hole in that theory. Now I shall try to fill it with a number of wild speculations: 1) The Mirror *was* protected in it's room by a spell which we are not aware of. When my canon gets here (I usually refer to my mother's copy of the books, which are currently unaccesable (read: underneath piles of junk)) I shall elaborate on this, but there may have been protection in one of the outside pictures or suits of armor, but the invisibility cloak went through the barrier, so Dumbledore had to find a new protection 2) Mrs. Norris (who I will always believe is a witch who is stuck in cat form) was watching the mirror's room. Every time someone sees the mirror, she tells Dumbledore (or filch, if he is in on it) and he moves the mirror to a different location that only he knows about. Maybe Quirrelmort got in on this, so Dumbledore decided to move it into the puzzle. 3) Maybe the room was enchanted with the same sort of not-there spell as hogwarts or the quidditch world cup, but harry and ron entering it with their invisibility cloak wrecked it 4) The mirror may have been enchanted the same way the stone was. So someone looking for the way to the stone would not have been able to find it, but someone who did not know where they were going or was just looking for the mirror would be able to see it. this seems like a one time spell, so Harry and Ron may have broken it... 5) (I actually subscribe to this one, unlike the others) After Harry found it, and told Ron, Dumbledore may have been worried that Quirrelmort (or whoever Dumbledore suspected) would hear it through the grapevine. "what happened between you and professor Quirrel is a complete secret, so naturally the whole school knows" Melody also asks: Why have the > > mirror at the end of the obstacles at all if all you wanted to do was > trap them? I think that the mirror was put there as a contingency plan, after it was set up as a trap. Dumbledore realized that the mirror was no longer safe where he had it before, so he moved it to the safest place he had! > > I said > >Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only > >enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough > >to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd > >need... > Melody said: > That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either > Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next > room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people in > that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) yes, but, if there was originally two doses of the potion in the bottle, wouldn't Hermione or Harry notice that there was less in that one bottle? meaning that someone had already drunk it? -Scheherazade, knows that there is *something* wrong with that potions sequence, but can't quite put her finger on it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 03:23:30 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:23:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) References: <30.320578ea.2b1bda59@aol.com> Message-ID: <004d01c299b2$30a45660$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47575 Scheherazade (gracious that is a mouthful) wrote: > > > > > >I have a completely different original reading of this. I thought > > >that Dumbledore left the mirror for Harry to find because he wanted > > >him to see his family in it. Dumbledore knew that having a family > > >was Harry's deepest desire, and he wanted to be able to tell Harry > > >that he shouldn't waste away wishing for his family, like the men in > > >front of the Mirror of Erised, and should, instead, move on with his > > >new life with his friends. me: I think that Dumbledore left the mirror for Harry to find so that he would understand it when he encountered it at the end. All the other obstacles they figured out by logic but the mirror had to be explained because otherwise Harry would not have seen the stone but only his parents like when he first encountered it. Rob From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 2 05:08:48 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 05:08:48 -0000 Subject: Potion Puzzle/loathsome Dursleys/House assignments/Wizards lack logic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47576 Scheherazade wrote: << if there was only enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough to drink? >> I always assumed that the potion bottles refilled themselves, just as the chess pieces set themselves up again. << whose short posts somehow come out longwinded anyway >> When the reward for telling the story in such a way that it isn't finished by sunrise is that you don't get your head cut off, I think that counts as positive re-inforcement for being longwinded. Robert Gonzalez wrote: << I think Dumbledore knew [growing up with loathsome Dursleys] would make him humble not pround and cocky. >> If Dumbledore knew just how badly the Dursleys would treat Harry, it was foolish or desperate of him to leave Harry there, or wizards' psychology is different from that of Muggles, dogs, and cats. The kinds of beings that I know about, bring them up in constant abuse and no example of goodness, and they grow up either broken terrified cowards who'll do anything to (something like Pettigrew in GoF) or cynical tough guys who'll do anything to triumph (something like Tom Riddle). Neither is good preparation for being a hero to rescue the wizarding world. Chthonia wrote: << Given that a major theme in the books is that racism and prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted by the ways character traits seem to run in families in the Potterverse? >> Yes. I suppose this is a case of JKR's message and/or personal beliefs being swamped by either the plot or the literary form of the story she's telling or the archetypes that she has, perhaps unintentionally, invoked. << (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) >> And Hermione been a Ravenclaw -- or another Slytherin, as she is depicted not merely enjoying to learn stuff, but also ambitious to learn stuff. If the Sorting Hat doesn't just assign kids to whichever House they already wanted (we haven't heard from any student who wanted to be in glorious Gryffindor, with its prestigious reputation, and instead was put in Slytherin, or Hufflepuff), it must have some complicated decisions to make. In Percy's case, I imagine it found him ambitious, and studious, and rule-biding, and also courageous, and sufficiently honorable that, push comes to shove, if he had to choose directly between his ethics and his ambition, he'd choose his ethics. I suspect that rather than having some magical brain-wave test, it just ASKS the student which heesh would choose. That could explain Pettigrew: maybe he *thought* he'd die rather than betray his friends until the wand was actually at his throat... << I wonder if JKR is allowing us to accept all the anti-Slytherin comments only to turn our own assumptions against us later on... >> I hope so, but I doubt it. << Incidentally, IMO the technology/magic split has a major impact on the respective social structures. I reckon one of the reasons that the MoM seems so shambolic (ref earlier discussions on lackadaisical judicial procedures, etc) is that in a world where physical problems (such as building structures) can be solved by the wave of a wand, logical problem solving wasn't that important (hence Hermione's comment on wizards' lack of logic (PS/SS Chap 16)). The kind of systematic mindset necessary for efficient organisational structures just wouldn't evolve, or be valued or taught. >> I admire this new idea! I never before connected the lack of engineering with the lack of command-and-control. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Dec 2 05:24:08 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:24:08 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Hogwarts Library and search engine... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3DEB8928.18063.100A1C6@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 47577 On 1 Dec 2002 at 16:22, bootekusic wrote: > Hello, > > I do not know if this has come up or not in past posts. I've tried to > search for it in the archives and such, but abandoned that rather > quickly. Anyway, it struck me as odd that there is no quick way of > finding information in the Hogwarts library. An example would is > shown in the first book when they can't find a thing on Nicholas > Flamel and search for him for weeks. They have the same problem in > The Goblet of Fire when Harry and Hermione are looking for > information on dragons and how to "defeat" them. They run across the > problem yet again when he has to figure out how to breathe > underwater. To me, it seemed like there should be some quick way of > finding what you need, using something like a search engine or even a > card catalog! Do you think that they had this problem with other > subjects also? This just struck me as strange because there seem to > be quick ways to do MOST things in the Wizarding world as opposed to > the Muggle world. So I'll let you guys mull this over while I finish > GOF for the 5th time... I wonder if Madam Pince is the catalogue? Maybe there is no catalogue because she herself as an encyclopedic memory of what is in the library (knows every book intimately). If so, there may be no need for a catalogue as she could answer any question rapidly. But when you are trying to find information you shouldn't have how do you ask her for it? Hagrid's reaction to them finding out about the name Nicholas Flamel may have lead them to think it's something they shouldn't ask about. "Madam Pince, where do I find a book on how to defeat dragons?" might lead to some awkward questions (-8 If it's something to do with schoolwork, Madam Pince would probably be ready to answer questions - anything else might be a bit awkward to ask about, and therefore lead to massive searches. 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 ashfae at technicaldetails.org Mon Dec 2 06:03:04 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 06:03:04 -0000 Subject: Some Questions; Draco; Dursleys; Madam Pince; Veritaserum; D-dore; Ron; etc Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47578 From: evenflow200214 >>6) How do the Paintings exist? Were they people who chose to become >>paintings? Are the in the control of the artist that drew them? I very much doubt that people "become" paintings. Someone who's photographed in the wizarding world does not lose part of his soul/personality to the photograph. A painting is a reflection of the original model, but nothing more. >>7) Will Harry and Cho get together, in your opinions? I highly doubt it. Harry feels no small amount of guilt over Cedric's death; even if Cho never blames him for it, he's sure to blame himself. >>10) Is Fudge merely corrupt, a good man at heart, or evil? And to >>what degree? Weak and bedazzled by his own power. He might be quite a good minister for quiet, uneventful times, but he's a very dangerous sort of man to have in charge now. Easily swayed by words and prone to accept the easiest, short-term solutions to problems. From: Jessica >>In GoF, when the Death Eaters conjure the Dark >>Mark and Harry, Ron, and Hermione run into Draco while >>fleeing to the Forest, Draco is fairly hateful to >>Hermione, but he nonetheless keeps urging her to get >>away from the DE chaos. And Heidi's right. Draco's >>quite nasty to her, but for someone who supposedly >>hates her and hates Mudbloods, it's surprising that >>he's *not* goading her into the center of the danger. >>Instead, he's warning her (granted, in a verrrrry >>roundabout manner) against it. We have completely different interpretations of this scene, methinks. I didn't see Draco's words as being a warning at all; to me, they sounded like a threat. Also it struck me as yet another attempt to humiliate Hermione with words, as Draco sometimes does. The idea that Draco secretly wants to be part of the Trio is interesting; I've heard it before, but rarely seen it argued so well. Still, it doesn't strike me as probable. It's always seemed to me that what Draco wants is to beat the Trio (and most particularly Harry) or at least to see them beaten. He can't do it on his own; the Malfoys as a family seem inclined to act indirectly rather than to attack themselves. Lucius acts through the diary and by manipulating political ties; Draco uses Crabbe & Goyle as threats/bodyguards, and uses tricks such as the duel that doesn't happen in PS/SS rather than hexing Harry outright. The closest Draco comes to directly attacking the Trio is duking it out with Harry on the Quidditch pitch. But Voldemort can possibly defeat Harry, and thus bring down the Trio entire; I wouldn't be surprised if that alone tempted Draco towards the dark side. Also, I've never gotten the impression that Lucius doesn't feel love towards Draco. Difficult to judge that by what we've seen, but Draco doesn't act like an unloved child. He acts like a spoiled brat, yes, but that's not necessarily the same. The way Lucius shows affection might not be the best for Draco, but he does display concern for his son's welfare and takes measure to keep him protected. I'm not denying that Lucius also feels Draco is a represenative of the Malfoy name; absolutely this is so. But it doesn't follow that because Draco has a duty to his family name he is unloved. Really, I think we need more information before we can make up our minds one way or the other about Draco. From: Meira >>But... sending Harry to a very far away place should be (for the >>Dursleys) as if 10 years worth of Christmass's, Hannuka's, Birthdays >>have been cramped into a single day. So, why would they want to >>prevent Harry from going to Hogwarts? You forget, it was a given that Harry was going to go away to school. They want him gone, yes, but to a normal school. They don't want him encouraged to use magic in any way, shape, or form. It Harry's expelled from Hogwarts, he'll have no choice but to go to a Muggle school and learn to live as Muggle (or at least, so I imagine Vernon thinks; Hagrid is proof that there are other options). And on a related note: From: Cassie >>I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but what about them >>saying Harry went to St. Brutus's School for Incurably Criminal Boys? >>With their need to be 'normal' why would they pretend Harry was 'an >>incurably criminal boy'? In this day and age one would probably come >>to the conclusion that Harry had been influenced by his environment >>if they believed he went to St. Brutus's. Though I suppose in >>comparison to him being a wizard it's not as disgraceful to the >>Dursleys. Ah, but being a criminal is normal. It's wrong and disgraceful, but still a normal thing; it's something that happens for logical reasons to ordinary people. Being a wizard is, to their minds, insane and incomprehensible. It shouldn't be possible, and therefore shouldn't be allowed. A criminal can be dealt with in the Dursley's world; a wizard cannot. From: Grey Wolf >>Now, how does Pince find the information herself? We should ask >>Lexicon Steve this (he should know, if anyone), but I have the >>feeling that a librarian's job is to know where everything is. And >>there could be spells for searching books by content, only they don't >>come in the reglamentary school books, and are relatively >>unimportant, and thus Hermione has not heard of them yet. I've worked in libraries for years, and I'm not even a technically trained librarian. At the moment I work in a bookstore with barely any organizational system whatsoever. But believe me, it's amazing what you pick up; I can lay my hand on nearly any book we own when asked, even if there's no order to where they're hidden. You just get a feel for where the books are. There may well be an organizational system at the Hogwarts Library that we've not been aware of; but regardless of that, I'm quite sure that Madam Pince knows the location of every single book in the library. And even if she doesn't, I'm sure she knows the spells to find them. As for searching for spells by content, I'd imagine there is at least a rudimentary organizational system set up; Hermione at least never has any difficulty finding anything. In the case of the gillyweed, they were looking for something pretty specific and obscure; something that would show up as a footnote in a book rather than in a book on its own merit. Not the sort of thing easily found in a list of what types of books are where. They didn't even know if what they wanted was a charm, a potion, an herb, or for that matter even something possible. (and why the devil didn't Harry just ask Madam Pince for advice on how to breathe underwater? It wouldn't have been illegal in that instance! Bah! Librarians are your friends, I swear! Just don't hurt our books and we're perfectly friendly!) From: Strix >>Whydidn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to the accused >>Death Eaters, and get around the whole problem of trying to figure >>out whether they had acted of their own free will? I believe Snape said that the use of Veritaserum is strictly controlled; I imagine that it might even be considered dangerous, and is thus only used in the most extreme situations. (before anyone asks, I'd bet that Dumbledore had no business administering it to Barty and would get into serious trouble if he weren't the great Dumbledore) I've noticed several people refer to Sirius as being sent to Azkaban on "very little evidence." To which I respond thusly: Dumbledore testified that Sirius was the Potter's Secret Keeper, he was found at the scene of the crime, and most telling of all, there's no evidence whatsoever that Sirius made any attempt to defend himself. Granted, his story would have sounded wildly improbable, but he could have at least spawned some doubt; as part of the proof, well, he's an Animagus himself, which would at least demonstrate that more was going on than was immediatley obvious. Dumbledore at least would have listened. But no one suspects that Peter or Sirius could be Animagi; therefore I think it unlikely that Sirius offered up any defense. What could the Ministry do but condemn him? All the appearances were against Sirius, and he didn't deny any of it. From: Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) >>If Dumbledore knew just how badly the Dursleys would treat Harry, it >>was foolish or desperate of him to leave Harry there, or wizards' >>psychology is different from that of Muggles, dogs, and cats. The >>kinds of beings that I know about, bring them up in constant abuse >>and no example of goodness, and they grow up either broken terrified >>cowards who'll do anything to (something like Pettigrew in GoF) or >>cynical tough guys who'll do anything to triumph (something like Tom >>Riddle). Neither is good preparation for being a hero to rescue the >>wizarding world. No? If we want to view Dumbledore's actions in an incredibly coldblooded manner, the Durlseys was the ideal place to send Harry. He grew up unloved, unknown, and completely alone. But now he has a home at Hogwarts and with the Wizarding World, and what he dreads more than anything else is being banished from it. He'll fight tooth and nail to defend his new home. If he'd grown up in the WW and was less desperate for a place to belong, he might not fight so wholeheartedly to protect it from Voldemort. At age eleven, alone and hopelessly outclassed, he does everything he can to stop Lord Voldemort's return. If he's that determined at age eleven, what will he be like at seventeen? (dang, book seven is bound to be interesting!) From: vincentjh >>BTW, isn't it a bit unusual for a 12-year-old to memorize something >>like that? This isn't the only time Ron recalls a decree or a case, >>but IIRC he's not particularly good at history. Odd. I would imagine he just picked it up around the house; his father works for the Ministry, and I'm sure other Ministry members come to visit, and Percy's been destined for the Ministry since forever. It's not unusual to pick up such knowledge secondhand. For example, my mother is a doctor, as are all my aunts and uncles. I have all the scientific knowhow of an average brick and studied English, but I've picked up all sorts of bizarre and often quite specific knowledge about medicine just from listening to them. I imagine something similar happened to Ron. Plus, he's smarter than he lets on. the fact that he dislikes homework isn't indicative of his intelligence; no young boy likes homework, with a few notable exceptions such as Percy. Ashfae (who really needs to post more often, as these gigantic posts are just ridiculous and it's impossible to describe their contents in the subject heading when so much is being covered! *sheepish gryn*) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 2 06:07:55 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 06:07:55 -0000 Subject: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47579 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" wrote: > Sche (less a mouthful) wrote: > > >Maybe the mirror was origionally not supposed to be in the maze, but,>because Harry found it, and showed it to Ron, Dumbledore decided tomove it somewhere where it could not be found on accident. The heavysecurity around the third floor corridor may have been a red herringthis ties in to the possibility that Dumbledore suspected Quirrel orone of his staff from the beginning). Maybe the tests were really a trap after all. The potions puzzle may have been a lie, with thecorrect' drink only letting you go through the fire once; neitherQuirrel nor Harry go back through the fire on their own steam. Melody: > You know I like the idea. It works with the assumptions you make, but(come on, you knew there would be a 'but' there ) really what harmwas there in finding the mirror by accident? Couldn't Dumbledore just keep it there? The security was not breeched after all. Why have the mirror at the end of the obstacles at all if all you wanted to do was trap them? > Sche: > > Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only > >enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough > >to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd > >need... Melody: > That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either > Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next > room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people in that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) The same reason there were *three* brooms. I think that is the best clue that the obstacles were set up as a training exercise for Harry and co. as well as a lure for Voldemort. Of course Dumbledore couldn't know that Harry and Voldemort would try to go after the stone at the same time. Or could he? The obstacles were obviously meant to be puzzles, not traps. If they were traps then there would have been no brooms, or hexed ones, and there would have been poisonous potions in *all* the bottles. The lawful retriever of the Stone would bring a broom and the necessary potions in with him/her. But you probably wouldn't need a potion to return from the Mirror room to the potion room any more than you needed one to enter the potion room in the first place. The only obstacle which is a genuine trap is the Mirror, and it is a trap aimed at Voldemort. If the Mirror had simply been left out somewhere, Voldemort would have had no reason to look at it. The idea was, I think, to lure Voldemort on with the fair puzzles, and get him to look in the Mirror. In the event he was too shrewd to do so, but if he had looked, he would have seen himself experiencing immortality, and so been caught forever. Pippin From cmikhailovic at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 04:21:04 2002 From: cmikhailovic at yahoo.com (cmikhailovic) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 04:21:04 -0000 Subject: Book Titles: How they relate to Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47580 Hi, I know I'm coming back to this very late, but here's a thought. Each of the book titles seems to move Harry *further away* from Voldemort himself -- representing Harry's eventual victory, I think. 1. Sorceror's Stone: an item Voldemort tries to lay hands on, and for which he competes with Harry. Harry prevents him. 2. Chamber of Secrets: a location, designed by, and intimately connected to, Salazar Slytherin -- Voldie's ancestor -- that Tom Riddle takes for his own. Harry defeats him there. 3. The Prisoner of Azkaban: Sirius Black, an innocent but haunted and imperfect man, duped via Voldemort's servant, who turns out to be an ally of Harry's. 4. The Goblet of Fire: a neutral, and immensely powerful magical object, a symbol of harmony and cooperation. It gets corrupted, as much as it can be, by a supporter of Voldemort. But the Goblet is not in itself evil. 5. The Order of the Phoenix: Presumably, the "old crowd" -- a last alliance of wizards uniting to defeat Voldemort. Good guys. Even while Harry moves closer to direct confrontation with Voldemort, the titles increasingly link him to objects/people that are *against* Voldemort. Catja From Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 08:12:12 2002 From: Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com (nox_et_dies) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:12:12 -0000 Subject: Who knew about Barty Jr./the Real Moody? ( was Snape and the Lucius (forget the Potters)) In-Reply-To: <12f.1c693d3e.2b1be0a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47581 Jodel wrote: >>By the time Draco gets home from Hogwarts he is probably going to >>find himself facing an inquisition from his father over just what >>the hell went on at school this past year. I(the ever lurking) Lost Feyth write: I don't believe there is any cannon evidence that Draco knows anything about what happened to Barty Jr. The only people who know that fake!Moody is actually a fake are: McGonagall, Snape, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, V-mort and Wormtail (?), Real!Moody, Winky, Fudge. There are three people who may or may not know exactly what happened to Moody: Madame Pomfrey, Bill Weasly and Mrs. Weasly. As it's my humble understanding, no students are aware of what happened to Barty Jr or Moody. "The real Mad-Eye Moody was at the staff table now, his wooden leg and his magical eye back in place. He was extremely twitchy, jumping everytime someone spoke to him." (GoF pg 720 US edition) All the students know is that Mad-Eye is extremely twitchy and jumpy. There is no other mention of what Harry, or the other students percieve or know of Moody. (I could be wrong, it's about three in the morning, and my brain isn't functioning properly because of approaching finals and my need for cramming. ^_~) Just a lurker's thoughts. -Lost Feyth, who belongs to the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory community, and really wants to know if Snape has boxers or briefs ^_~ From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 08:12:42 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:12:42 -0000 Subject: The Hogwarts Library and search engine... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47582 Grey Wolf wrote: The easiest way to find anything in a library is something that we have yet to see Harry doing: asking the librarian! That is what Pince is there for, after all. Me: That's not necessarily true. During Harry's preparation for The Second Task, he does actually ask Madam Pince for help: "However, though he, Ron and Hermione searched through their lunchtimes, evenings and whole weekends- though Harry asked Professor McGonagall for a note of permission to use the Restricted Section, and even asked the irritable, vulture-like librarian, Madam Pince, for help- they found nothing whatsoever that would enable Harry to spend and hour underwater and live to tell the tale." (GoF, Chapter 26 "The Second Task," Page 419, Australian Paperback Edition) Also, that excerpt really shows just why people aren't running to ask Madam Pince for help- an "irritable, vulture-like" woman that students are reluctant to approach isn't a very efficient cataloging system when you think about it- not if people avoid using it. It seems to imply that people only ask Pince as a last resort, and are prepared to sift through the library on their own accord. Pince crabbily "brandished a feather duster" at Harry and tells him to get out of the library just because he was loitering about looking over at the Restricted Section in PS, which shows, at least, that she's not the most amicable sort, even when confronted with a harmless boy standing silently and keeping to himself. (Although, it should be noted that in PS when the trio decide not to ask her for help, it's not because of her irritable nature, but because they don't want to risk Snape finding out.). Also, I'd also wager that another factor contributing to why Harry doesn't appear to ask Pince for help frequently is simply because he's friends with Hermione- who's love of books would mean that most resources he would need for schoolwork she already has, or can show him where to get, or alternatively, is accessible in his own text- books. Grey Wolf wrote: However, Harry and co. seem possesed by a latent distrust towards figures in authority and prefer trying to find the info on their own Me: Whilst I'm not arguing that the trio *don't* possess a distrust towards authority, in Pince's case this isn't totally applicable because they *do* ask her for help (as noted above). However, in PS their reluctance to ask her for help (they don't want Snape to find out, which would imply that they assume Pince will tell him) does exemplify a mistrust of authority. Harry also asks McGonagall for help (asking her for a permission slip to use the Restricted Section) which is demonstrative of acknowledging and trusting a figure of authority. In contrast when they manipulate Lockhart into signing the permission note for the book with the Polyjuice Potion in it, it is very much demonstrative of a distrust and disrespect for authority. Interestingly enough, the two disrespectful ones are from 1st and 2nd Year, whilst the two trusting ones are from 4th Year. Perhaps Harry is maturing- well, at least in relation to his idea of authority and learning (Although probably not so much in his idea of authority and discipline- he still disobeys rules about staying in his dorm in 4th Year). Grey Wolf wrote: (about what Bootekusic wrote) In every example you have put, they had a reason to keep others from knowing what they were looking for: they cannot let know that they have clues about Flammel (it would put Hagrid in danger for having told them), they cannot let know that Hagrid told them the first task would involve dragons, they don't want Krum to know that they have solved the egg puzzle, etc. Me: The first example- Flamel and that it would put Hagrid in danger doesn't actually cross their minds- they're more concerned above Snape getting wind of what they're doing: "He, Ron and Hermione had already agreed they'd better not ask Madam Pince where they could find Flamel. They'd be sure she'd be able to tell them, but they couldn't risk Snape hearing what they were up to." (PS, Chapter 12 "The Mirror of Erised," Page 146, Aus. Paperback Edition) I suppose that it's arguable that the reason they don't want Snape to find out is because he'll assume it was Hagrid that told them, but I assume that they don't want Snape to find out because he'll suspect *them* and do something horrible to them to stop their investigation, or do something to them to get them out of the picture. In the second example- the Dragons, there is no references either way as to whether they did or did not ask for help- according to canon Harry and Hermione just read dozens of books about Dragons looking for the simple spell Sirius told Harry about until Crouch/Moody slips the information to Harry before they got too desperate. So they don't really go out of their way to hide the knowledge of The First Task from anyone. They do conceal themselves when they're practicing the Summoning Charm- but that's not because they're withholding information about knowing about the task, it's because they're forced to continue practice until at least 2 o'clock in the morning the night before the task until Harry can actually do it properly. In the third example- The Second Task and Krum, apart from what I've already said that shows that Harry did ask for help and didn't conceal his knowledge, it's pretty clear that Krum already knows- they see him jumping into the Lake. And Hermione doesn't like Krum in the library only because his giggling fan-club follows him everywhere. Krum is not noted at all realy in relation to the research on The Second Task. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 04:57:42 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 04:57:42 -0000 Subject: The Potions inconsistency (was: Mirror and Obstacles) In-Reply-To: <1bf.1636a375.2b1c2bfe@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47583 > Scheherazade said: > > > >Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only > > >enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough > > >to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd > > >need... > > > > Melody said: > > > That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either > > Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next > > room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people in > > that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) > > Scheherazade again: > > yes, but, if there was originally two doses of the potion in the bottle, > wouldn't Hermione or Harry notice that there was less in that one bottle? > meaning that someone had already drunk it? > Okay. Do /not/ have my Book 1 with me here, so bear with. Were there still two doses in the bottle Hermione drank from, or not? Because Quirrell wouldn't've drunk from that bottle yet. Additionally, how in the world were they counting on two people? Considering that Ron /might/ not have been taken, had he sat on another piece - or, here's a thought - had HE stepped into the king spot and the other two just stood back and watched - or if Neville had in fact gone along with them... Geh. There are too many loose ends on that plot thread, IMO. ;) And finally... nnno. Didn't the flames spring up after they came into the room? So either the flames 'reset' after a certain amount of time (in which case, why bother?!) or else Quirrell did not activate the flames. Again, if I am spouting misinformation, do forgive. CK clicketykeys From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 2 11:58:29 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 06:58:29 EST Subject: the Mirror of Erised/potion test Message-ID: <47.26d4e49e.2b1ca4e5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47584 Catlady says: "I always assumed that the potion bottles refilled themselves, just as the chess pieces set themselves up again." me: Oi, that does make my head hurt less! I think I like that explanation! Rob: "I think that Dumbledore left the mirror for Harry to find so that he would understand it when he encountered it at the end. All the other obstacles they figured out by logic but the mirror had to be explained because otherwise Harry would not have seen the stone but only his parents like when he first encountered it." I don't think that Harry would have seen his parents in the mirror when he was looking in it with Quirrelmort. The mirror shows what you most desire, and, at that moment, what Harry most desired was to find the stone before Quirrel. -Scheherazade, the aptly named [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 13:12:52 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:12:52 -0000 Subject: The Potions inconsistency (was: Mirror and Obstacles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47585 Melody said: >>That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either >>Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next >>room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people >>in that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) >Scheherazade again: >yes, but, if there was originally two doses of the potion in the >bottle, wouldn't Hermione or Harry notice that there was less in that >one bottle? meaning that someone had already drunk it? Um...Hermione and Harry knew someone had drunken from the bottle because they thought Snape was in the next room at the time. I do not see why they would of thought immediately that this bottle was the right one for the black flames, since there was different sizes of bottles. It could be assumed different amounts of liquid were in each. If anything, if they did assume something based on sketchy information like that, then they would be doomed to fail. CK wrote: >Okay. Do /not/ have my Book 1 with me here, so bear with. Were there >still two doses in the bottle Hermione drank from, or not? Because >Quirrell wouldn't've drunk from that bottle yet. It does not say how much was in Hermione's bottle but it does say the smallest bottle was the one for Harry to use. And besides, what does it matter how much was in Hermione's bottle since the goal was to get past the black flames not purple flames. CK wrote: > Additionally, how in the world were they counting on two people? > Considering that Ron /might/ not have been taken, had he sat on > another piece - or, here's a thought - had HE stepped into the king > spot and the other two just stood back and watched - or if Neville > had in fact gone along with them... Geh. There are too many loose > ends on that plot thread, IMO. ;) Not by mine CK. The whole reason there was two doses, by my opinion, was so just Quirrelmort and Harry could be in the room. By my estimate, the obstacles were a way to tag off any student, which means Neville could of been thought a part, that followed Harry down there. So Hermione and Ron were never meant to be in the mirror room with Quirrelmort. The reason why Dumbledore was counting on two people is what Grey Wolf and I were discussing on the chalkboard behind the TBAY stage. CK finally asked: >And finally... nnno. Didn't the flames spring up after they came into >the room? So either the flames 'reset' after a certain amount of time >(in which case, why bother?!) or else Quirrell did not activate the >flames. Yes, both flames sprung up when they got in the room. That does not mean they would not die again after the potion drinker passed through the black flames. The idea was to get past that check point. Once past there, they were wanting to move onward, so the part was not too important. The potion just made the drinker get that icy sensation chewing gum commercials advertise to get through the flames. I guess you are asking why bother if he could get back out. Then they are not trapped. Hmmm, don't know there. Maybe when you return to the room the flames trigger again and you have to figure out which was the purple flame potion. You know, I guess the room was not a trap. Sorry Sche. :) But the mirror definitely was. Quirrell would of gone mad from his desire and frustration. Melody who should be getting ready for work From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 11:58:48 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:58:48 -0000 Subject: Sirius sent to Azkaban on very little evidence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47586 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ashfae" wrote: > I've noticed several people refer to Sirius as being sent to Azkaban > on "very little evidence." Okay, tight on time here and can't look it up, but IIRC, Sirius was sent to Azkaban without a trial at all, wasn't he? I think /that/ is the bugaboo - not that he wouldn't've been convicted ANYWAY, but that things were so muxed up that he was just locked up. CK clicketykeys From pdo at uwm.edu Mon Dec 2 15:15:32 2002 From: pdo at uwm.edu (pollypocket53132) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:15:32 -0000 Subject: Let's Make a Difference, Potter Fans! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47587 Hello Potter Fans, Check out www.the-leaky-cauldron.org Now a non-profit corporation, it will be raising funds for a chance to bid on JKR's card in Sotheby's auction. Even if we don't win, all funds will be donated to Book Aid International. The Leaky Cauldron has a full description of this wonderful cause. Spread the word! Together we can make a difference! Long live Harry! Polly From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 15:40:31 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:40:31 -0000 Subject: Compilation of Questions for JKR (WAS: Can Ghosts Drink?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47588 I (Phyllis/erisedstraeh2002) originally wrote: > Can ghosts drink? We know that Nearly Headless Nick tells Ron and > Harry that he hasn't eaten in over 400 years in PS/SS, and all of > the food at the Deathday party in CoS is rotten so that the ghosts > can smell it as they pass through. But they can't *eat* it. So > can they drink? Because wouldn't Nearly Headless Nick have had to > drink the Mandrake draught in order to be un-petrified? > > It seems to me that if ghosts can't eat, they shouldn't be able to > drink, either. But then how was Nearly Headless Nick restored? Which led to a discussion about how *any* of the basilisk's victims were able to swallow the potion, to which Jazmyn said: > if they are petrified, there's no way they can swallow > anything, even if their mouths are open. to which Amanda responded: > Nobody ever said they have to swallow it, that I can recall... Now me: You're right - nobody said they had to swallow it, but Dumbledore refers to the potion as "Mandrake juice," which implies that it's something to be imbibed. Jazmyn again: > There ARE other ways of administering the potion, such as an enema > or injecting into the stomach, but I seriously doubt that Rowling > would want to bore us with the details if they DID use enemas. to which Amanda replied: > Especially since they would have had to use a drill for either > option, given that the victims were, as you note, petrified. Me again: LOL! I was in tears when I read this!! Amanda again: > And even if it is poured into the mouth, it's *magic* and if that's > the way it's given, physiology has little to do with it. Me again: I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I envisioned it thusly: Once the Mandrake juice was applied to the victim's mouth (or lips, if their mouth was shut), it would un-freeze that part of the victim's body. So if their lips were frozen shut, applying the juice to their lips would un-freeze their lips, thus enabling the nurse to open their mouth and pour the rest of the juice into their throat. As the juice traveled down their throat and into their body, it would unfreeze as it went along. And once it hit the stomach, it would then be able to travel to the rest of the victim's body through the bloodstream. I don't think it's an immediate process, for Dumbledore tells Ginny that Madam Pomfrey is "just giving out Mandrake juice ? I dare say the Basilisk's victims will be waking up at any moment" (Ch. 18). I'd also like to thank everyone who responded to my question ? I've never received so many responses to one of my posts before, and I really appreciated it! Also, apologies to Oryomai for bringing up a question that he/she had already raised (I must have missed it the first time around). The misting idea on Nick is a good one, but this seems to me to be a good question for JKR to address when she compiles her encyclopedia after the HP series is completed. Do we have a list of such questions? If not, I'd be happy to volunteer my services to keep track of questions such as these for the group. ~Phyllis From mo.hue at web.de Mon Dec 2 16:21:23 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:21:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47589 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy" Judy said: > There was a lively debate in the past few days as to whether Sirius > had PTSD. Several people suported the idea that he did. I said that he > didn't, because his symptoms were wrong (no overt signs of anxiety), > he recovered too quickly, and that his symptoms developed while he was > still being traumatized instead of afterwards. Well, I'm not a psychologist, but I have read quite a lot about the subject. I really don't think his symptoms are wrong, IMHO they fit just fine. The course of the disorder is never the same in two people, and that there's a whole range of symptoms, and you don't have to display them all to qualify for a diagnosis, you know that, don't you? As for "no overt signs of anxiety" I heartily disagree. It just depends on your perception of "anxiety". A person who has PTSD is afraid the original trauma will happen again, and in Sirius' case, that is the destruction of the Potters. Of course he is afraid the same thing might happen to Harry, now that he's aware that Pettigrew isn't dead after all. He might himself call it an "obsession" that made him break out of Azkaban, but if this isn't a deep anxiety/fear, I don't know what would be. As for him recovering "too quickly", I insist that he has *not* recovered yet. He just had enough time to get a grip on himself, and we really don't see enough of him in GoF to be sure all his symptoms have faded away. And in the literature about PTSD you will always read that people recover at very different rates (some of them rather quickly, even after being severely traumatized), you can't just say he recovered too quickly because you believe him to be a bad tempered guy. BTW men suffering from PTSD were usually stigmatised as "hot-tempered", violent and impulsive for a long time, before the disorder was officially recognized as such and included in the DSM in 1980. Now, for your argument that his symptoms developed while he was still being traumatized: first of all I'd say his symptoms developed *after* his original trauma (the murder of the potters and his "involvement" in it), and while he was still being traumatized in Azkaban, it was his second trauma so to speak. You can very well have PTSD while already being in the middle of the next trauma. And you know what Acute Stress Disorder is? The symptoms are basically the same as for PTSD, but the onset is immediate, not delayed. Some people develop symptoms right after the trauma instead of several weeks later. I always assumed this happened with Sirius when he went after Peter. And don't forget he had a nervous breakdown when he was arrested. > This was another point that was discussed quite a bit in the past few > days. By the way, I believe the summer break at Hogwarts is only two > months (July and August), not four. Well, let's have a look at the timeline then: Buckbeak's "execution" took place on June 6, and apparently Sirius stayed in England a little bit longer, but safely hidden (following his own words in his letter to Harry). And even though term begins on September 1, he only came back near the end of October (if I remember well), so your argument doesn't hold up here. And I repeat that I don't believe he entirely recovered during this time, just that he was functional again when he came back. That's a huge difference. > I can't see the argument that Sirius "really" has PTSD but JKR just > didn't write him to fit the disorder because of plot constraints. Here I can't follow. My argument is/was that JKR actually *did* write him to fit the disorder because of plot constraints. It was an elegant way of making us believe he was a bad guy until the end, and the symptoms (namely his overreactions) fit just fine. > I could just as easily argue that Snape is in actuality a very kind and > nice guy, and his nastiness to Harry is only because JKR couldn't fit > his sweetness and light into the plot. Okay, I don't want to explore this further, but Snape was written if not as a bad guy (we know he's on the "right" side, at least now), but definitely as a nasty guy. BTW JKR said so in an interview. And there's nothing in the plot that lets us believe that Snape is really kind and sweet. I am really sorry, but I can't see your argument here. I said: > > I will agree on > > this. Okay, those portraits seem to have feelings, but I still > > rather consider them as "objects". > Judy replied: > Are you sure you want that as your philosophy? If things that have > feelings can be considered objects, with which one can do as one > pleases, then what objection can be given when Lucius treats house > elves, and even non-magical humans, as objects to be tortured for fun? Like someone else has already stated, there is a *huge* difference between magical portraits and house elves, and I thoroughly agree. They are living beings, they are born and they have a life cycle. They have to eat and drink to survive, and they I assume they use the "normal" way to reproduce. Eventually they will die like all living things (or the wizarding world would be overrun by house elves). The portraits are created by magical artists, but at the risk of making you all yell at me, I rather see them as the equivalent of artificial life. And there are some really good simulations nowadays, you know, one of them being the Creatures series by Creature Labs which I have been playing for several years know. Those critters mimic biological life in your computer, they have a rather sophisticated genetic makeup, they have a neural network for a brain, they are born, they play, they mate, they can get ill and will eventually die when their lifecycle is finished. They even evolve over generations and are capable to "adapt" to a certain degree. And yes, when the first of those programs came out in 1997, there were lots of players who treated them like pets and screamed for "equal rights for norns", because they considered them as animals. To make my point: I am not for torturing house elves, non-magical humans or any kind of creatures (including animals). But the proof those portraits are actual living beings and not the painted, more sophisticated equivalent of wizard photos (or Muggle artificial life) has yet to be made. They seem to be alive, but they can't live outside of their canvasses, like my norns can only live in their own world within my computer. You can export them and import them into another person's world, and the portraits can leave their canvas and visit another portrait, but you won't see them roam the corridors of Hogwarts and attend the feasts in the great hall (like the ghosts do). ----- Original Message ----- From: scheherazade said: > Now, I agree that it is rather cruel to slash the painting, and it does harm > the Fat Lady emotionally, but it does seem to be a superficial harm, she gets > back to her old self in a little bit after Filch patches her up(I don't have > my canon with me so I cannot be exact, sorry). I think that the Slashing was > a "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs" thing for Sirius; Yes, I agree here, and the violence involved definitely is a hint that Sirius is suffering from PTSD, which is basically a malfunction in the automatic defence reflex of the central nervous system which has been built in by evolution at the time when our ancestors were still roaming the grasslands of Africa, but which is a maladaption in modern environments. ----- Original Message ----- From: >Then Audra said: > Well, that's all true, but I wasn't referring to philosophical proof, which > as you correctly implied, we can never have. I meant canon proof, as in JKR > stating in the books that the painting people are really alive or human, and > that hasn't been stated. The point I was trying to make is that Sirius > slashing the Fat Lady's portait can't really be said to be a character > inconsistency in an otherwise "good" person, because the Fat Lady's portrait > is an object, not a person. I couldn't have said it any better. ;) And I maintain that Sirius *had* to do something "terrible", so we would continue believing he was a dangerous murderer. Then there's the incident when he slashes Ron's bed hangings, and when he chokes Harry in the Shrieking Shack. *All* these situations mimic a part of his original trauma, not being able to finish off Pettigrew, which provokes this kind of overreaction. Judy might still disagree here, but those *are* classical PTSD symptoms. > Yes, I see your point, but my Sims characters act that way too. They come > visit each other, talk about their interests. When one is in a bad mood, > another comforts them. When one gets too friendly with another one's wife, > the other one punches him in the nose. But I know they don't have real > feelings (or I'd feel much worse when they drown in the swimming pool). And I bet your Sims don't even have a genetic makeup and don't evolve from generation to generation like my norns do. But I still don't consider them as real animals, although they do quite a good job at mimicking nature. The Fat Lady is a wonderful wizard simulation of a person, but she is IMHO not a real person. Life is also defined by "something able to reproduce itself", and my norns even do that, but they still aren't real animals. Nor is the Fat Lady a real person. She wasn't born, and she can't die. She doesn't have to eat or drink to stay "alive", and she can't reproduce herself. So, while Sirius' violent act might shock a lot of people, it's not murder or even attempt at murder. > I just really think the portrait people are more comparable to my Sims than > to me. The portraits, I assume, are created by wizard artists, and wizards > are powerful, but not gods. I don't think they would have the ability to > create a life like that. Well said. Like they don't have the power to make the dead return to life. Monika From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 17:09:55 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:09:55 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Racism, & technology (Was: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47590 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "chthonia9" wrote: > I'm intrigued that no-one has taken up the last point I was > trying to > make: Given that a major theme in the books is that racism and > prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted > by > the ways character traits seem to run in families in the > Potterverse? Although one might expect there to be family cultures > which would make sibling/offspring entry into the same school House > more likely, even at eleven years old I'd expect individual > traumas, > sibling rivalries etc to have produced differing motivational > drives. (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) But it > seems that bloodlines do indeed have a significance Yes, well, often blood is thicker than water. And I think the Sorting Hat can see past the petty squabbles that are a part of normal family life, so that a family that truly likes to stick together (like the Weasleys) will belong to the same House. Note that the Patil sisters DID get split up. > > And why is it worse for Draco to call Hermione a Mudblood (CoS pg 86- > 89, and elsewhere) than it is for Hagrid to say that the Malfoy's > have `bad blood' (CoS pg 51)? Connotation, for one thing. It's the difference between saying "that whole family is rotten" and calling someone a "nigger" - a word that in addition to its denotative meaning has a LOT of historical and emotional significance. Additionally, not having the book here with me at the moment, I think Hagrid meant "bad blood" in a different sense of the phrase - like you can say there's bad blood between Harry and Draco. I believe this goes back to the idea that an imbalance in the humors (ie bad blood) would cause sickness and emotional instability. On hiding from Muggles and the increases in technology which have put Muggles at something of a power-balance with the WW: > Grey Wolf also said: > > > the "purebloods" really feel that they are the ones that should > > be out in the open, with muggles hiding from them. Take into > > account that "old families" tend to have an egocentric > > streak, having to hide from inferiors is going to cause them > > something akin to physical pain. > > Yes, that makes a LOT of sense ? the Malfoys' constant > harping on > their racial superiority, as if they have to keep on making the > point, fits well with an inherited wound to their pride. > > > Sherry Garfio said: > > > I would also like to add that there is a new threat today > > against the Wizards: Muggle technology. > > Interesting. I hadn't really thought of that factor in a > historical > context before. Since the separation Muggles have progressed from > being obviously inferior (in power) to wizards to being in many ways > equal, and have also evolved more organised ways of acting together. > So there is a greater potential threat now than ever, which the WW > perhaps doesn't want to face ? hence the general bemusement > expressed > at technological devices by, for example, Hagrid and Arthur. By > viewing technology as a bizarre Muggle idiosyncrasy, which as Emily F > pointed out is another way of patronising Muggles, wizards can deny > the threat it poses. So - to draw on my geekiness in other sources as well - what we are seeing here is an AU version of the start of the Ascension War! There are some wizards who believe their powers make them better than Muggles and likely would not hesitate to squelch them. Additionally, at this point in the Potterverse, magic is still stronger than technology - there are places so glutted with magic that Muggle tech won't work, but we have no reason to believe that there are places where it's difficult to use magic as a result of technology. If anything, the strength of Muggle disbelief makes it EASIER to use magic, as Muggles will accept what happens and make excuses for it if at all possible. And then you get "Muggle-lovers" like Arthur Weasley, who would defend Muggles against the squelchers... who additionally has a fondness for technology and has been privately experimenting with ways to incorporate magic and technology! Hm. Arthur Weasley, the first Technocrat? It could happen. ;) CK clicketykeys From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Dec 2 17:27:55 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:27:55 -0000 Subject: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) In-Reply-To: <20021201210339.21712.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47591 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kethlenda wrote: > I've noticed several people discussing the "witch > hunts" in which the accused Death Eaters were put on > trial, and the fact that several characters have been > condemned to Azkaban on very little evidence. It > brings to mind a question I've had ever since I first > read GoF. > > After the fall of Voldemort, it was difficult to tell > who had really followed him, who was innocent, and who > was Imperius'ed. Yet it is in that same book that the > Veritaserum plays a major role in the plot. Why > didn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to > the accused Death Eaters, and get around the whole > problem of trying to figure out whether they had acted > of their own free will? I've come up with a couple of > possible answers: > > (1) It's an accidental plot hole. > (2) Only Snape knows how to make it, and either he > didn't know how to make it yet at that time, or else > was not trusted with such an important matter. > (3) Some high muckety-mucks in the MOM didn't *want* > the whole truth told, because they were afraid their > own dirty laundry would be aired. > > Any thoughts? > Strix There are two more reasons: one has already been pointed out, that the Verisaterum is a recent invention (the problem with this is that Snape talks about his *strongest* truth-telling potion, which means there are more truth-telling potions, and not all can be recent discoveries). The other, the one I prefer, is the fact that there are truth telling potions in *our* world (the muggle world), and good ones, too. And yet, they are not used. I consulted a doctor about it the last time this came up on the list and I participated (almost a year ago, IIRC), and he told me that truth-telling serums (like sodium pentothal) are indeed efective. Why they aren't regularly used, I haven't the faintiest idea, but if someone can hunt the reason down, it is probably aplicable to the WW too. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From indigo at indigosky.net Mon Dec 2 18:03:54 2002 From: indigo at indigosky.net (Indigo) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:03:54 -0000 Subject: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47592 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kethlenda wrote: > > I've noticed several people discussing the "witch > > hunts" in which the accused Death Eaters were put on > > trial, and the fact that several characters have been > > condemned to Azkaban on very little evidence. It > > brings to mind a question I've had ever since I first > > read GoF. [snip] Very little evidence = circumstantial evidence. Which is exactly what kind of 'evidence' was used for the witch hunts in the muggle world and ours. Hence the term witch hunt. In the Potterverse, the wizards can pretend to be burned but rather get to enjoy themselves. But yet they follow the same flawed reasoning muggles do when their own wizards go out of control. They take the first thing that looks likely and decide "that must be it!" without any further checking. > > (1) It's an accidental plot hole. > > (2) Only Snape knows how to make it, and either he > > didn't know how to make it yet at that time, or else > > was not trusted with such an important matter. > > (3) Some high muckety-mucks in the MOM didn't *want* > > the whole truth told, because they were afraid their > > own dirty laundry would be aired. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Strix > > There are two more reasons: one has already been pointed out, that the > Verisaterum is a recent invention (the problem with this is that Snape > talks about his *strongest* truth-telling potion, which means there are > more truth-telling potions, and not all can be recent discoveries). > > The other, the one I prefer, is the fact that there are truth telling > potions in *our* world (the muggle world), and good ones, too. And yet, > they are not used. I consulted a doctor about it the last time this > came up on the list and I participated (almost a year ago, IIRC), and > he told me that truth-telling serums (like sodium pentothal) are indeed > efective. Why they aren't regularly used, I haven't the faintiest idea, > but if someone can hunt the reason down, it is probably aplicable to > the WW too. > I just happened to read in another book [presuming the author of the fictitious work in question did his research] that sodium pentothal can cause brain damage with its usage. Which, I guess, is why it's always showed being used by villains in the movies, who don't care whether they damage their subjects. The good guys don't want to damage their subjects. --Indigo From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 18:40:57 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Megalynn S.) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:40:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47593 >Grey Wolf wrote: >The other, the one I prefer, is the fact that there are truth telling >potions in *our* world (the muggle world), and good ones, too. And yet, >they are not used. I consulted a doctor about it the last time this >came up on the list and I participated (almost a year ago, IIRC), and >he told me that truth-telling serums (like sodium pentothal) are indeed >efective. Why they aren't regularly used, I haven't the faintiest idea, >but if someone can hunt the reason down, it is probably aplicable to >the WW too. Now me: My guess would be the 5th amendment (at least in America). People have a right not to incriminate themselves. This same moral principle might be a standard in the wizarding world, also. Just a faint idea Megalynn _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Dec 2 19:05:32 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:05:32 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: <84.35db361.2b1bdeb6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47594 Eloise wrote: > If you regarded MD invalidated by what JKR said, wouldn't that mean > that you were taking into account authorial intent? No, because at that point it would be canon. Everything stated by JKR (unfortunately) is canon, whether it makes sense or it doesn't. And when I say unfortunately, I am refering to the pesky number-of-students business, and how a contradiction in canon can lead to lenghthy arguments. Which isn't so bad, on second thought. So it could be "fortunately", I supose. > Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking? No. Metathinking refers to the method of theorizing based on "this is a book". For example: "Because it's a book, we can expect a happy ending with Voldemort vanquised and Harry victorious. We can expect the hero or his sidekick to get the girl. Etc". I don't like metathinking because it depends on what book you think you are reading, which is what I said when I refered to the three authors. The easiest, I think, is Shakespeare: take a look at Romeo and Juliet. Now, supose you've only got the first acts. Metathinking will tell you: it's a romantic comedy: they fall in love, love conquers all, and they live hapily ever after. And then comes the shock - look, the author was leading us down the garden path. Of course, people that do in fact like metathinking are much better at it than I am and they might take that sort of thing into account, but I am reluctant to believe in their conclussions, because their methods are already very doubtful. They can try and convince me that *their* view of the books is the correct one, and that they really do know where JKR is going, but I'll choose not to believe them - because JKR has managed to twist my expectations sistematically in every book, no matter how I tried to see it coming. Authorical intent is another thing: it is what metathinking tries to guess by looking at "similar" books (this is subjective: every person seems to use different books for that cathegory). The difference between one and the other is that only JKR can use authorical intent, and is canon. Metathinking is trying to outguess her, and my experince says that that particular game is doomed to failure. But, as I've said (and you quoted me), that's just me - if you feel you're up to the task of outguessing Jo, give it a try. Who knows? you might even get it right. I just say that I know *I* won't. (That having said, I do indulge in metathinking myself from time to time but, no matter what theories came out of it, I always treat them with very high suspicion) > If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's > authorial intent matter one jot? Internal evidence is the same thing as canon. JKR's word is *also* canon. Thus, if JKR states that there is no MD, there is not: she's the one that created the place, she's the one that has power to bring it down. Which is not the same as metathinking, I insist. (On a tangent, there is certain "softness" to JKR's word which makes it less "canon" than what is written in the books. If JKR suddenly announces in an interview that Hagrid wasn't taken to Azkaban, but to another prison, it would drive many people on the list mad, since it is a fragant violation of hard canon. And, knowing us, we'd find a plausible reason none of us would really believe but would use, for sake of our sanity.) > Grey Wolf: >> All MAGIC DISHWASHER tries to do is explain what has happened >> so far,from the most rational point of view possible... << > And the above, that it is JKR, not Dumbledore, who is orchestrating > events is *my* most rational point of view. > > ~Eloise Ah, but there's the catch: you've used it yourself. By introducing JKR into the equation, you're doing the same thing as if Newton had introduced God (i.e. a supernatural entity creator of the universe, in case you don't happen to be from a monotheistic religion) into the equation. Science assumes that there is no supernatural purpose to the Universe, and you'll find that most of my theories in the list follow the same path. Now, you may want to think that this is not the case (i.e that there are things that happen in the books that are plot-driven, or that JKR thinks necessary for character development, or for angst building, or whatever), and *that* is what metathinking is. I dislike that sort of reasoning intensively, because I prefer my books to be free of "authorical intent" (but not in the sense you've used it) - that is, that they are not puppets in the author's hands. If that happened to be the case, the books would loose all their interest in my case. So, where does that leave MAGIC DISHWASHER? MD was built according to scientific principles, taken as many pointers from the books as possible to what is going on around Harry without him knowing, and putting toghether a theory that will rationally explain it, *without* using the will of God Creator (JKR, in this case - do not mistake with intra-textual gods, which the fantasy setting may or may not have, and which in HP are, so far, absent). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, which want's to insist once more, just in case: Metathinking is not wrong. He simply dislikes it and won't accept it's conclusions, especially where MD is related. From fun_n_games_2663 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 16:25:51 2002 From: fun_n_games_2663 at yahoo.com (fun_n_games_2663) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:25:51 -0000 Subject: Gandalf and the Dishwasher/Enough is enough (for now) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47595 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > The basic stumblicng block I have with your theory is exactly that > Gandalf parallelism. As you have mentioned, Gandalf had been > forbidden > to take a direct hand in the affairs of men due to his condition of > semi-god which wasn't actually part of Middle Earth (or something > along > those lines; I am not particularly knowledgable in Middle Earth > theory). What is stopping Dumbledore, then? There has been no > mention > of Higher powers forbidding Dumbledore to act, and we know he *has* > participated in the past (i.e. Grindewald). Introducing a superior > being at this point would be premature, unless you take hold of > metathinking and reduce it to "I don't think JKR plans Dumbledore > to > participate in this war". At which point we would separate ways, > because I don't think so (this is pretty obvious, if anyone has > read my > views on MD). Lucky Kari also weighed in with a similar concern. I would like to explain that I have no delusions that Dumbledore is an angel or a god or anything else not of this world (and, yes, I know that Gandalf is Maiar, but I don't want to debate exactly what that is). I only referenced Gandalf to give you the picture of how I perceive that Dumbledore wishes to "sit this one out" so to speak, but to train and counsel others on the specific requirements of fighting the dark forces. I think he is doing this because he feels that someone has to be trained to take his place when he goes. 150 is old even in the Potterverse. He is not going to be around forever to defeat the Grindewalds of the world. Grey Wolf continues: > > As Harry himself mentions at the end of PS, it is very possible > that > Dumbledore used that oportunity to further Harry's education in a > practical way: facing Voldemort once again. Without going into > Melody's > variant of first shot at destroying Voldemort, Harry needed that > oportunity to learn about Voldemort, which is not the sort of thing > that can be taught to him "in theory". By facing him, he was facing > his > fears, learning about himself (his protection, his parents, etc.) > and > learning about the person who desperately wants to kill him. Which > is > always useful, in an information war. Note that this fits both > theories: MD!Dumbledore was definetely playing the teacher all > along, > since he was hiding someplace nearby, ready to rescue Harry if > things > got out of hand (which, not surprisingly, they did). > Now me: I agree with this analysis. I also agree that it fits both theories. I think PS was a "learning tool" for Harry, and he passed with flying colors. Grey Wolf continues: > > > This hasn't been particularly analized by MD, to tell the truth - > it is > not something Dumbledore could've planned, since he didn't know > about > the diary, and it is still uncertain whether Voldemort himself > planned > it (if it wasn't, then it's not part of MD, really). So, leaving MD > for > a while, you have to realise that DUmbledore probably knows that > only > someone with the capabilities of a heir could enter the chamber > (which > would explain why no-one else had been able to find it). Since > Dumbledore suspects that Riddle aka Voldemort was the last heir, > and > that Harry has part of his powers, he might have been using Harry > to > get someone into the chamber. But since he's not a cruel person, he > also has something prepared to get him out of trouble in case he > succeds in finding the place (i.e. the hat and the pheonix). Going > back > to MD for a moment, part of the addendums I vaguely recall (I need > that > unifying post as much as anyone else) is that Dumbledore always has > something ready to help Harry is things go seriously wrong >(himself in PS, Fawkes & SH in CoS, Snape in PoA's SS, Harry himself >in PoA's > Dementor Dementia, but none in GG - because he didn't see it coming > [yes, I like using double letters for situations in the books. It > keeps > with JKR's style]). > Now me: I agree again! "Counselor" Dumbledore is training Harry. He doesn't necessarily know what evil lurks each year, but he figures it out and then lets Harry go about learning it and attempting to solve it. Of course, Dumbldore is available to lend assistance if required. This concept, as you say, does not carry through to GoF, where I think Dumbledore was caught unaware by the plot cooked up by LV. It just so happened that Harry had been trained up pretty well by the time of GoF, and survived on his own. Grey Wolf continues: > As many others, you seem to forget that Dumbledore is not playing a > chess game *at all* - not even in MAGIC DISHWASHER. Voldemort and > Dumbledore are fighting an information war, which means that the > one > who gets to know more about the enemy while hiding his own moves > will > win. Just like Dumbledore was able to fool Voldemort into using the > potion, Voldemort was able to slip one of his DEs into Dumbledore's > plac without him noticing. Good spies are, by definition, difficult > to > catch (the bad ones are dead). > > Also, in relation with the free choices: Dumbledore does not make > any > of his allies choices, except indirectly. Let me explain that: you > can > read through all (pro-)MD posts and you'll never see a reference to > Dumbledor forcing decisions on his allies. He does indeed make > decisions for his enemies, but that's the core of any good plan: to > get > your enemy to do what *you* want, not what they would want. > > How does he make choices indirectly? By education, of course. Many > of > your "free choices" are based on you education: of morality, of > logic, > of options, etc. Now, don't misunderstand me: I believe that those > are > still free choices, but they have been tainted by the morality of > those > that have taught you, especially in school years (and even more at > the > onset of puberty, which is when you are given the heavy moral > education). If you check some of the posts on MD morality, you will > see > that it is a basic position that Dumbledore hopes that Harry will > make > the right choices (if he had allowed Lupin and Black to kill Peter, > that particular plan would've fallen around Dumbledor's ears, > especially since Snape was no longer in charge). > Now me: Once again, I agree with almost all of this analysis. The one thing I disagree with is that I believe that MD has to assume that Dumbledore thinks ahead to what he beieves his opponent's next move is, e.g. to concoct a potion to give V back his body, and then plots a countermove, e.g. to get V to use a defective potion. In my mind, this constitutes Chess Theory or Gamesmanship. My point here is that Counselor!Dumbledore may not know what the evil side is cooking up ahead of time, but is usually smart enough to figure it out ahead of our heros. He usually then leads them along the path to realization and provides them with the tools necessary to win the battle. I agree that it is up to them to make the choice to act. As I say, I think that in GoF, Dumbledore slipped. He didn't know who the spy was, he didn't didn't know they would try to steal Harry for the potion, and it is only because of Harry's training in the first three years that he successfully escaped V in the graveyard. This is why I think the 4th book is a pivotal novel. It is the first time Harry was really on his own (no help from Dumbledore) and succeeded. Grey Wolf continues: > > Thus, MAGIC DISHWASHER, and evcerything else we want to draw from > canon > that is not canon itself is a theory OR a hypothesis. What it is > not is > a tautology, a theorem, a truth or Gospel (as Russ said). > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, who would like to use this oportunity to thank all those > people who wrote to me after that hellishly long post yesterday to > tell > me you liked it. You know who you are, and I'm very grateful for > it - > it was very hard (and long) to write, and it's nice to know someone > actually listens. Now me: If it wasn't clear from my last post, I would like to say the MD is an excellent theory. And theory it is, although we could call it speculation or hypothesis as well. One of the reasons I posted the Couselor!Dumbledore theory was to point out that different theories can coexist until one is proven wrong. In the meantime, we can have wonderful fun debating our theories and using canon to support them. One does not have to be right and the other wrong. The only judge of what is right or wrong at this point is JKR. For my part, I look forward to lively debate on the topic. A lively debate, however, does not include personal attacks. In discussing theory, I'm always reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail--the "How do you know she is a witch?" scene. We burn witches, so they must be made of wood. If they are made of wood, they will float. Instead of drowning her to prove she is not a witch, though, we can compare her to a duck, which also floats. Thus, if she is heavier than a duck, she is not a witch. Theory?- yes. Funny?-yes. True? of course not--we all know witches don't really burn, but use a freezing spell and only pretend to burn! Russ--Fun_n_games. From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 18:51:30 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:51:30 -0000 Subject: Veritaserum: the legal basis References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47596 I'm not sure if this applies everywhere, but there are laws against self-incrimination in Britain. I suspect that's why the use of truth drugs is not widespread. I've never heard of any case where people have *asked* to be injected with the drugs, but I can see not real objection. I'll inquire with my legal teacher. On a different note, suppose Mrs. Smith, a suspected DE, was offered the Veritaserum test. Now, if she had nothing to hide (and for the purpose of this she's innocent) she would take the test. However, during one of the times of her suspected crimes she was really in bed with her lover - cheating on her husband. Would she take the test if she could get out of it? Just because she's not a DE does not mean that she has nothing to hide. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From daniel.brent at cwctv.net Mon Dec 2 19:46:02 2002 From: daniel.brent at cwctv.net (evenflow200214) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:46:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's treatment of Draco (was: Re:Snape, Lucius, and missing DE's (was: Re: Snape and the Potters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47597 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "personman46" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Audra1976 at a... wrote: > > Jazmyn wrote: > > < mistakes he made, favoring him cause he sees himself as a kid?>> > > > > Snape's treatment of Draco as interpreted by Harry and others may > just be another misconception about him. We are led to think that > Snape just favors the Slytherins and especially Draco just because > Snape shares the belief that purebloods are superior and because > Draco is from a prominent, wealthy, pureblood family. > > > > Now I'm not saying that Snape doesn't really have these beliefs (I > love him and everything, but face it, the man has issues ;)), but > perhaps Snape is also favoring Draco because, as Jazmyn asserts, he > perceives Draco may be tempted to make the same mistakes he did, and > he intends to use his leverage to guide Draco away from those > mistakes. > > > > If this is so, we should begin to really see it develop in the > next book, as it *appears* that Lucius will be a full-fledged DE > again, actively serving Voldemort, and Snape is on the opposing side. > > > > Audra > > What I don't understand is why Lucius lets his son anywhere near > Snape, assuming that Lucius knows that Snape is a traitor and was a > spy against his cause (which all would have been revealed through > the trials of the DE's after the fall of Voldemort). Wouldn't he > have used his influence as a School Governor to make sure Snape > never even got the job in the first place? You'ld think that Lucius > would be afraid Snape would do what was mentioned above to his son. > > -Person Man Lucius is a traitor himself... If he starts piling the pressure on Dumbledore, Snape could reveal some choice things about Lucius... Lucius switched sides to save his own skin and if he's seen making a song and dance about it, the other Death Eaters (the loyal ones) will turn around and say *well who are you to have a go at him?* He also draws attention to the fact that he has left Voldemort, if he keeps it quiet he might be able to get away with it. Fudge is so blinded, he reckons that Lucius was never involved with Voldemort... He can't just create a fuss and call for Snape's head without a mighty good reason... And he can't say *because Snape's a former Death Eater* as he'd burn all his bridges with the DE's and he can't say anything else or he implicates himself. --Daniel From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 20:14:54 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:14:54 -0000 Subject: On the nature of metathinking... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47598 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: Wolf: > No. Metathinking refers to the method of theorizing based on "this is a > book". For example: "Because it's a book, we can expect a happy ending > with Voldemort vanquised and Harry victorious. We can expect the hero > or his sidekick to get the girl. Etc". CK: Actually, metathinking /starts/ with that (as you sort of mention later) and goes further. We can't expect any of the above claims just because "this is a book," because clearly, there are books that do NOT give happy endings. However, because this is a story - and it seems to be a good story - we CAN expect catharsis. In a story, catharsis is the appropriate resolution of foreshadowing and payoff. You want the end of the story to feel "right." This can ONLY happen if it is foreshadowed. However, you don't want the payoff to be obvious, either. When you have an ending in which everything suddenly falls into place in the your mind - when the writer creates that "aha!" moment - you have catharsis. The movie _The Sixth Sense_ dealt with its cathartic moment very effectively by using flashbacks, so that the character came to the "aha!" at the same time the audience did. In books, we have that same freedom on our own - we can flip back to the setup points and reread. Wolf: > I don't like metathinking > because it depends on what book you think you are reading, which is > what I said when I refered to the three authors. The easiest, I think, > is Shakespeare: take a look at Romeo and Juliet. Now, supose you've > only got the first acts. Metathinking will tell you: it's a romantic > comedy: they fall in love, love conquers all, and they live hapily ever > after. And then comes the shock - look, the author was leading us down > the garden path. CK: That, however, is shoddy analysis - it was /assumed/ to be a romantic comedy. An appropriate analysis takes what is KNOWN and goes from there. Had R&J actually /been/ a romantic comedy, an ending that killed them both off would have been inappropriate. We can know, for example, that the Potter books are popular fantasy aimed at a certain age group because that is how they are marketed. And I think it is fair to make logical progressions from that. In fact, I think most of us likely have - we expect Voldemort to be defeated, because it is a more reasonable end to the story, based on the type of story we know it is, than if Voldemort succeeded in his Nefarious Plot. Other things we can conclude are that Harry will /not/ die in his fifth or sixth years at Hogwarts, because this is his story. Likewise, Voldemort will not be permanently defeated before book 7, because he is the central antagonist. > > Of course, people that do in fact like metathinking are much better at > it than I am and they might take that sort of thing into account, but I > am reluctant to believe in their conclussions, because their methods > are already very doubtful. They can try and convince me that *their* > view of the books is the correct one, and that they really do know > where JKR is going, but I'll choose not to believe them - because JKR > has managed to twist my expectations sistematically in every book, no > matter how I tried to see it coming. > My argument here is that theories based on solid metathinking are just as viable as those based on canon. The difficulty is that you can come to irrational conclusions much more easily with metathinking once you start moving away from what has been established. CK clicketykeys From indigo at indigosky.net Mon Dec 2 20:22:20 2002 From: indigo at indigosky.net (Indigo) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:22:20 -0000 Subject: Veritaserum: the legal basis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47599 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: > I'm not sure if this applies everywhere, but there are laws against self-incrimination in Britain. Technically, the same is true of the states. The Fifth Amendment allows a person to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that it might incriminate them. One loses the ability to say that when under truth serum. I suspect that's why the use of truth drugs is not widespread. I've never heard of any case where people have *asked* to be injected with the drugs, but I can see not real objection. I'll inquire with my legal teacher. But I'm not sure the wizarding world would care as much about that. I mean they have spells and devices that allow them to scry or look into the past, and see things. Pensieves, at least, are purchasable anywhere. And while Dumbledore's is kept under lock and key, an "alohamora" spell could get past that depending on how good the lock is, and there would be self-incriminating stuff for anyone to see. > > On a different note, suppose Mrs. Smith, a suspected DE, was offered the Veritaserum test. Now, if she had nothing to hide (and for the purpose of this she's innocent) she would take the test. However, during one of the times of her suspected crimes she was really in bed with her lover - cheating on her husband. Would she take the test if she could get out of it? Just because she's not a DE does not mean that she has nothing to hide. > > Chris > Also very true. --Indigo From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 20:33:46 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:33:46 -0000 Subject: What About a Flame-Freezing Charm? (WAS: The Potions inconsistency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47600 Scheherazade said: > but, if there was originally two doses of the potion in the > bottle, wouldn't Hermione or Harry notice that there was less in > that one bottle? meaning that someone had already drunk it? and Melody responded: > Um...Hermione and Harry knew someone had drunken from the bottle > because they thought Snape was in the next room at the time. Now me: I'm glad this came up, because I've always been puzzled about it as well. IMO, we're definitely led to believe that the smallest bottle is full. There is no mention of it being half-empty, or of someone already drinking from it. It's referred to as "tiny," and Harry tells Hermione "There's only enough there for one of us...That's hardly one swallow." Harry "drained the little bottle in one gulp" (PS/SS, Ch. 16). Granted, this isn't enough to conclusively conclude that the bottle wasn't completely full, but I think the implication is there. So, the Catlady's premise that the bottles refill themselves is viable, as is another: Quirrell never drank from the bottle in the first place. Perhaps he used a flame-freezing charm to get through the fire. Harry doesn't learn about flame-freezing charms until Book 3, so this option wouldn't have occurred to him. But it could have occurred to an experienced wizard like Quirrell. And it's certainly a lot faster than figuring out the riddle! In addition, Dumbledore needed a way to get in there when he arrived to save Harry. Unless the bottle refilled itself, he would have had to have found another way to brave the flames. Clickety Keys asked: > Additionally, how in the world were they counting on two people? Now me: I don't think they were. I think the bottle was designed for one person (based on its small size). ~Phyllis From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 20:45:59 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:45:59 -0000 Subject: The Potions inconsistency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47601 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" wrote: bboy_mn general comments on the Potions, and Flames: Sorry, I'm so hopelessly far behind after the holidays, not to mention hopelessly lazy from too much to eat. So, I will just make some general comments on the issues raised rather than responding directly to people. I know that's not very polite, but like I said, I'm running on a seriously low head of steam. How many doses were in the bottle (any bottle)? No one knows except Snape; a dose could be a drop, a swallow, or a gulp. Quirrell, Hermione, or Harry couldn't have possibly know how much one dose was. There could have been four doses in the vial the let them move forward to the next chamber, but Quirrell pigged out with three large gulps, which was far more than he needed, leaving Harry with just barely one dose. That was my take when I read the story that Quirrell had taken a few big gulps leaving just a little bit remaining in the bottle. As far as deciding which bottle to drink from based on which bottle had already been drunk from, I don't think that's a safe method. Snape could have filled the bottles to different levels, quarter full, half full, etc... (as someone else also pointed out) in an effort to fool anyone who might try to guess which bottle was correct. The only safe sure way to decide was to solve the riddle. The Flames! I think the flames reset whenever someone stepped into or out of the room. When someone stepped into the empty room, the flames sprang up trapping them there. When the room was empty as when Quirrell went forward, the flames shut off, thus resetting the trap for the next person. That next person steps into a seemingly innocent room, the flames spring up, then no way out until they solve the riddle of the potions. Quirrell and the Flames- Just my opinion, but I don't think Quirrell solved the riddle. I think he had inside information that told him which were the proper bottles to drink from. That's why he moved through so fast. I also suspect that he didn't play a chess game. Again, having inside information, he knew how to by-pass the game. He knew how to avoid being trapped by the Devil's Snare and he knew which key to look for but he probably still had to chase it (or perhaps summon it). Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From mrs_snape at softhome.net Mon Dec 2 21:04:31 2002 From: mrs_snape at softhome.net (mrs_snape at softhome.net) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:04:31 -0700 Subject: What About a Flame-Freezing Charm? (WAS: The Potions inconsistency) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47602 erisedstraeh2002 writes: > Perhaps he used a flame-freezing charm to get through > the fire. Harry doesn't learn about flame-freezing charms until Book > 3, so this option wouldn't have occurred to him. But it could have > occurred to an experienced wizard like Quirrell. And it's certainly > a lot faster than figuring out the riddle! But wouldn't it be completely besides the point to make things that easy? They were trying to keep experienced wizards out - they surely didn't think they needed to protect it from the pupils alone, did they? And while Harry, Ron and Hermione managed to get through they were 3 people, each with special skills. Quirell got through because he knew what was expecting him. One single wizard with no idea about what would wait for him would have had quite a hard time - I doubt they would have left an option for cheating at the very last barrier. I'm quite sure the flames were un-freezable - the auto-refill option seems to be a good one because I honestly can't think of any other way it was done. Dinah From marlysam at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 20:20:40 2002 From: marlysam at yahoo.com (marlysam) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:20:40 -0000 Subject: Augustus Rookwood Is Ever So Sexy! [Was TBAY] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47603 lucky_kari" wrote: > "Augustus Rookwood is dead sexy," says Eileen. "If that doesn't > represent your views on the matter, Cindy, I humbly beg your > forgiveness, but all your gushing posts about Rookwood did have me > wondering, and got me to the point where I have a very definite > picture of Rookwood. What woman wouldn't fall for "Augustus Rookwood > of the Department of Mysteries?" (2) > > "Oh, no apology needed," cries Cindy, "as I do think Rookwood > is Dead Sexy. I have his tattoo on my arm for good reason. > > I mean, Augustus Rookwood has it *all.* He has a dead sexy name. > He outfoxed the Ministry until Karkaroff ratted him out, so he's > cagey. He was the head of the Department of Mysteries, so he's > powerful. The smart money says he doesn't wear lime green suits > like Fudge, so he's a snappy dresser... (3) > > (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),and(8) are taken from emails by the > acknowledged authors. I've got another reason why Augustus Rookwood is Every So Sexy, at least in my book - he's a family friend of one of England's best Quiddich players, Ludo Bagman. Never mind all the information he managed to get Ludo to spill [and just how was Ludo privy to anything Voldemort needed to know? I doubt beater strategies were high on his list], think of the first-rate tickets to the games he would have had... sigh... - Marlys From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Mon Dec 2 20:29:08 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:29:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Humanizing Myrtle and Why is the toilet so important... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47604 Scheherazade and Porphyria have commented in great depth on this subject (and many thanks to Porphyria for the kind things she posted about Scheherazade and my own thoughts). Isn't it amazing how a discussion about something as mundane as the toilet can become so fascinating? Well, after the most recent posts, I've kind of gone off on some other tangents, considering some of the other issues listies have been thinking about re this topic. Scheherazade wrote: >Anal-Retentive Personality: Individuals who fail to progress pass >this >stage (the Anal stage) are obsessively clean and orderly, and >intolerant >of those who aren't. They may also be very careful, stingy, >withholding, >obstinate, meticulous, conforming and passive-aggressive >Withholding? >obstinate? passive-aggressive? I'd say that our Myrtle >does have these >traits. Me: Well spotted! I think that Myrtle classicly fits the anal retentive personality mould. Her lack of popularity while alive, which we can possibly attribute to her ...challenging...personality, and her highly unigue response to her death mirror this perfectly. Twileen wrote: >We often only see Myrtle as sort of comic relief, and we gloss over how >tormented she really must be. Me: Twileen goes on to suggest that Myrtle may become a kind of link in the books, helping us to understand more what the afterlife must be like for people who are trapped, as she is. I think that this is a particularly interesting idea. Myrtle is a particularly tormented soul, who seems to be using the afterlife as a way to create her own hell, punishing herself when she has finished punishing Olive. Myrtle is creating her own hell: living down the toilet. Doesn't this illustrate what she really thinks of herself? She has also began using her ghostly abilities to spy and stalk (we learn that she sometimes hangs out in the Prefects bathroom, and spied on Cedric Diggory while he was in the bath working on the clue for the second task of the Triwizard Tournament (GOF, Chapter 25)). Her life (if that's what you can call it) has become squalid and sordid. She truly is a spectator, coveting what she cannot have - a normal teenage life, intimacy with others, physical contact. She is left to try and recreate this by spying on other in private, intimate activities: bathing or using the toilet. Isn't this really very tragic? Porphyria wrote in refernce to the importance of toilets: >Heck, even Dumbledore isn't too proud to expound on the necessity of >chamber pots. Me: Again, excellently spotted! That was one reference I had completely forgotten about! Dumbledore is always so gloriously uninhibited! He even comments during that scene about the fact that he had a particularly full bladder at the time. Brilliant, and something that one would only see in the Harry Potter canon. Porphyria again: >The Wizarding World as a whole has a problem with a repressed past which >they haven't dealt with -- Joe Average Wizard can't even utter Voldemort's >name -- and it's coming back to haunt them in a big way. This is analogous >to the 'anal' qualities that Shane and Scheherazade have mentioned -- an >individual (or society) is 'uptight' because they have stuffed down some >unpleasant repressed issues that they cannot 'digest' properly. Me: This is taking the "anal" theme to an even broader level, but I think it works, and works very well. In the WW, the real problems haven't been dealt with. Hatred, poverty, prejudice, superstition, fear are all still as virulent as ever. In fact, LV wasn't really beaten, he was just out of action for a while. If it was believed that he was really still alivew, why didn't a group of Aurors find him and finish the job? If Pettigrew could find him, I bet a team of Moody-like Aurors could have done! No, the attitude of the WW was to think that the problem was gone, and they cleaned house as well as they could, and by never mentioning his name, tried to pretend that nothing ever happened. People like Moody, who remained vigilant, and Dumbledore, who through example and understanding tried to build bridges and encourage tolerance, are seen as odd-balls, even in wizarding circles. The entire WW have a problem with dealing with the more unpleasant aspects of life. They much prefer to live on with the wool pulled firmly over their own eyes. As Porphyria has said, this is now coming back to haunt them, but even in the face of overwhelming evidence, individuals like Fudge prefer to live on in the illusion that all is well. Typically, it is Dumbledore who is ready to act. It is quite likely that he was always expecting this particular piece of excrement to hit the fan again. Well, that's all on this subject for now. Time to drag my mind out of the toilet! Shane. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 22:06:28 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:06:28 -0000 Subject: Catching up: MAGIC DISHWASHER, metathinking, Voldemort's body (Quite Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47605 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > But that's where MAGIC DISHWASHER and Dumbledore's plans come in: after > the near-fiasco with the PS, Dumbledore's plans gear into motion, by > gently guiding him towards the flawed potion (my guess is that the flaw > is in the ingredients, especially Harry's blood and Peter's flesh). > Normally, the potion would have gien him a new body where he could > re-construct his inmortality safety measures, but this new body is > going to prove *too* mortal. Metathinking tells us that Harry will be > involved somehow. So does MAGIC DISHWASHER, because Dumbledore has > spent a lot of time training Harry. > This is one of two major points where I don't understand MD. If Dumbledore is secretly guiding Voldemort to use the flawed potion, and if one of the flaws was the use of Harry's blood, how did D expect V to obtain the blood without capturing Harry? Wouldn't this have made Harry's portkeying away from the Triwizard maze less of a surprise? I would expect Dumbledore to put these two facts together and be on his guard: that Voldemort is to make a potion using Harry's blood, and that Harry has unaccountably been entered into the TWT. Clearly, D *was* very concerned that Harry was entered, but under MD I would think he would make more of a connection of it to Voldemort and V's need for Harry's blood. On the other hand, if D is merely a)training Harry to face Voldemort as he knows he must and b)doing his best to anticipate possible attacks in VWII, then he would have less reason to guess what Harry's entry is all about. Going one step further, if Dumbledore's intent was for Voldemort to use a flawed potion containing Harry's blood, how exactly did he *expect* V to obtain the blood without putting Harry through as bad an experience as happened in the graveyard in GoF? Anne From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Dec 2 22:15:01 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:15:01 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: <84.35db361.2b1bdeb6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47606 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > Sorry, it's taken a couple of days for me to get around to this. > > > Abigail: > > >In other words, if MD is never addressed by the books and I go > > > to see JKR and ask her whether she had any MD-like thoughts in > > >the back of her mind when she wrote the text and she gives me a > > >strange look and tells me that I'm crazy, that *still* won't > > >invalidate MAGIC DISHWASHER as an interpretation of the text. > > > > Pip: > > Well, it would for me, frankly. And as the creator of the > > theory, I think I'm allowed a say in what invalidates it. > Eloise: > Well, that kind of depends on your opinion of authorial intent, > whether it is of any meaning or not, doesn't it? ;-) (And I mean > the intent of the authors of theories as much as that of the > authors of books.) Pip: Um, no, I would say it depended on what someone admitted as 'canon'. My view is that any factual detail about the internal world of a book or series of books that can be definitely attributed to the author is canonical. Hogwarts has 1000 students. Jane Bennet's favourite colour is yellow. Both of these points are not in the respective books, the first case being from an interview with JKR, the second case being from a private letter of Jane Austen's. MD is an argument based on canon. JKR is the creator of canon, the creator of the world of Harry Potter. It is her world, she created it, we just get to play around in it. She has the last word. If she wants it. :-) [This is my personal view, not the official list view.] Eloise: > I'm the first to admit that I don't understand the finer points >of MD, so this is probably completely wrong, but there's something I don't get. > > If you regarded MD invalidated by what JKR said, wouldn't that > mean that you were taking into account authorial intent? Pip: I don't know, because I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by authorial intent [grin]. It sounds suspiciously like some kind of technical term? Eloise: > > Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking? > > If JKR's authorial intent could theoretically retrospectively >*invalidate* MD, why, if I understand correctly, has it been > sugggested that it is unfair *now* to use other 'metathinking' critical tools when evaluating the theory? Pip: Because I didn't use metathinking tools in creating it. As I said, to me the author's factual knowledge of the world they have created is canonical. If JKR says Dumbledore never had a plan about the rebirthing potion, that is canon to me, whether it appears in the printed books or not. > Grey Wolf: > >>I want to make this perfectly clear, because I have the feeling > that people have been misunderstanding me: I don't like > metathinking myself, especially against MAGIC DISHWASHER, which > is based in internal evidence (and thus it is not Fair Play), but >there is *nothing* wrong with metathinking per-se (and I hope >I've never implied anything else).<< > Eloise: > If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's > authorial intent matter one jot? > > OTOH, would it be unfair for me to suggest that I disputed what I > *think* is the whole basis of MD on the grounds that books, > particularly adventure/mystery/thriller type books frequently > depend on the coming together of all sorts of apparent > coincidences and chains of events of the most improbable nature. > It's just literary convention (and convenience) and does not imply > any orchestrating hand in the background but that of the author. Pip: One could say 'unfair', but mainly one could say 'it's completely irrelevant'. I suspect [I've said this before] that we're coming from completely different theoretical backgrounds. The analysis of canon that created the Dishwasher is probably closest in theory to a Stanislavskian approach, if you want to use one of *my* technical terms [grin]. To try and explain this: You can look at a text, whether novel, play or film script from one of two basic viewpoints. One viewpoint is that of the audience - the 'outside in' approach. For that approach the consideration of 'what type of book/play/film is it?' is a valid approach. The other viewpoint is that of the characters within the text (it's this viewpoint that an actor who has to perform the text often takes). This is the 'inside out' approach. This approach considers what do the characters actually do, what do other characters say about them, what do they say about other characters - in other words, their words and actions. In a Stanislavskian approach, you would treat the characters as if they were real people, with real motivations, in a real world. And you would try and work out whether they *are* always saying exactly what they mean, or if there is something else going on underneath. However, the point is, that in this approach an audience style 'outside in' point is actually pretty useless. For example: 'The Harry Potter books are an example of the Hero's Journey'. So? This is an 'audience' viewpoint. It provides absolutely no assistance to an analysis of what Harry says and does, what these actions say about his character and motives, whether he has plans or is just drifting along. It also has absolutely no relevance to an analysis, say, of Voldemort's words and actions in the graveyard. Voldemort doesn't know he's in a series of books about Harry's journey of self discovery. [And he'd probably be very annoyed indeed if he ever found out ;-) ] Or, 'Rowling's use of stereotype characterisation is shown by the portrayal of Voldemort as the stereotypical Evil Overlord'. So? Fine - he's an evil overlord. But what does he do? What does he say? And if you analyse what he does and says in detail, you discover what the analysis of the literary conventions Rowling uses might miss: that JKR has broken the stereotypes in certain ways. For example: Voldemort isn't stupid. Far from it. And he's not overconfident in facing Harry in the Graveyard. He spends considerable time and effort there in trying to weaken Harry by exhaustion, fear and crucio. [ see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40044 ] This is another point, really, about the `looking at it from the characters point of view' approach. Literary conventions are not set in stone, they are not unbreakable. Treat Voldemort as an Evil Overlord straight out of literary convention, and you'll miss [JKR probably *intends* you to miss] certain points which may turn out to be important. > > Grey Wolf: > >>All MAGIC DISHWASHER tries to do is explain what has happened so far, from the most rational point of view possible... << > > Eloise: > And the above, that it is JKR, not Dumbledore, who is > orchestrating events is *my* most rational point of view. > > Or have I misunderstood this whole metathinking business? > ? ~Eloise ? Yes, I think you may have. That JKR is the ultimate orchestrator is the view of the *audience*. The audience knows they have a book in their hand, and they can see JK Rowling on the front cover. But if I wish to discover Dumbledore's reasons for keeping Hogwarts open in CoS, when students were getting petrified right left and centre, saying: `because JKR wanted the book to continue beyond Chapter 8' is a cop-out. Dumbledore lives *within* the books. And you can look at him from the outside. Or you can try and analyse him from the inside. But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously. And that's why 'metathinking is not fair play'. You're asking me to look in two directions simultaneously. And I go cross-eyed ;-) Pip!Squeak From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 2 22:27:29 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:27:29 -0000 Subject: Rookwood, Augustus Rookwood (WAS: Augustus Rookwood Is Ever So Sexy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47607 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marlysam" wrote: > I've got another reason why Augustus Rookwood is Ever So Sexy, > at least in my book - he's a family friend of one of England's best > Quiddich players, Ludo Bagman. Never mind all the information he > managed to get Ludo to spill [and just how was Ludo privy to > anything Voldemort needed to know? I doubt beater strategies were > high on his list], think of the first-rate tickets to the games he > would have had... sigh... sigh... indeed. Pity he was sent to Azkaban. I think we're on to a good thing here. What sort of information was Rookwood getting from Bagman? I find this a very interesting question. Unless Voldemort wanted free tickets to Wimbourne Wasps matches. Any ideas, Cindy, who got us all obsessed with Rookwood in the first place? Eileen, who does think Rookwood is dead sexy, but just feels that one of those Rookwood thongs would clash terribly with her CRABCUSTARD shirt From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Dec 2 22:57:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:57:40 -0000 Subject: Catching up: MAGIC DISHWASHER, metathinking, Voldemort's body (Quite Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47608 Anne wrote: > This is one of two major points where I don't understand MD. If > Dumbledore is secretly guiding Voldemort to use the flawed potion, > and if one of the flaws was the use of Harry's blood, how did D > expect V to obtain the blood without capturing Harry? Wouldn't this > have made Harry's portkeying away from the Triwizard maze less of a > surprise? OK, let's tacle this one by one. I think that, once Harry was portkey'ed to the graveyard (or on his return, if they really couldn't see what was going on inside), Dumbledore could imagine what had happened, and could guess that Voldemort was somehow involved. So, once it had happened, there wasn't much of a surprise: Dumbledore could expect Voldemort to try and abduct Harry. It was the method that came as a surprise. Why didn't Dumbledore see the Portkey!Cup twist, then? Easy: because he was trusting a famous auror with the security. Only Moody was not there: it was an enemy agent, and thus, as long as Dumbledore didn't suspect of his actions, Crouch!Moody had the total run of the place. And we know Dumbledore doesn't suspect of him until the very end: "real Moody wouldn't have taken you away from me" (GoF). So, until that point, Dumbledore still couldn't understand what had happened (how could Voldemort's agent enchanted the cup, even with Moody constantly vigilant) > I would expect Dumbledore to put these two facts together > and be on his guard: that Voldemort is to make a potion using Harry's > blood, and that Harry has unaccountably been entered into the TWT. Oh, but Dumbledore suspected something *way before* Harry entered the TWT - the fact that he enters only increases his suspicions. He hires Moody, who has no known experience as a teacher and is widely known to be paranoic (and thus he could harm one of the students believing a simple prank was an attack). I don't think Moody was hired because of whatever teaching capabilities he might have: he was hired because Voldemort might make an attempt on Harry at a point where Hogwarts' defenses are lowered: the TWT, with all those new students going around (and thus, an increased possibility of having someone polyjuiced or hidden in some other way). The big error was, as I said, trusting the security to the enemy agent (who, in keeping with the real Moody, probably accused everyone and their little cousin of being the spy, keeping Dumbledore wondering until it was too late, and allowing the only one that could (not) be depended upon - Moody - take care of security). > Going one step further, if Dumbledore's intent was for Voldemort to > use a flawed potion containing Harry's blood, how exactly did he > *expect* V to obtain the blood without putting Harry through as bad > an experience as happened in the graveyard in GoF? > > Anne Note: This is just especulation, since there is no canon for this (as it hasn't happened and will never have the chance to happen). I'd say that Dumbledore's plan was that Voldemort would take longer to be able to make an attempt on Harry: later, when Harry was more prepared to survive the encounter. Or maybe I was wrong and Dumbledore didn't expect Harry's blood to be used at all and the flaw is more in the fact of using Peter as ingredient. Note that the basic theory only says that Voldmort wanted to use Harry, not why (and this is canon-based affirmation: Voldemort explains as much to Peter while Harry is eavesdropping). I do believe, however, that Dumbledore did expect Harry to be used, only not this soon. As always, events are thrusted upon him: he doesn't plan for this any more than he plans for Sirius escape, but once its happened, he has plans that depend upon it and are put into movement. If he could've waited, I'd think Dumbledore moght as well waited until Harry was 18 or more - that way, Harry could be consulted and agreed, and other thigns could've been put into motion (including a counter attack right after Voldemort's resurrection - who knows. As I say, it hasn't and won't happen, and I doubt very much if we'll ever be told). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who wonders who are the 17 people that have never heard about MAGIC DISHWASHER or at least stated as much in his poll From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Mon Dec 2 23:40:25 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:40:25 EST Subject: Parvati and Ron Message-ID: <131.17d8051a.2b1d4969@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47609 Ok...I don't have my book with me (you would think I would learn to keep them by my computer by now! *g*) so bear with me here. In PoA, during their first Diviniation class (did I spell that wrong), Trelawney tells Parvati "Beware a red-headed man" (or something close to that, again no book!) Wouldn't that message have been better suited to Padma? Since, after all, Ron was unpleasant to her at the Triwizard Ball. Or did Trelawney see Padma but didn't know they were twins? Trelawney has said that she doesn't go into the main part of the school very often "clouds her Inner Eye". Any ideas? Thank you! ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ P.S. Phyllis - I hope I didn't sound mean when I said that I had asked that question already, re-asking questions always leads to new answers! And I'm a girl ; ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 00:13:32 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:13:32 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47610 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: JENNY_RAVENCLAW: > > ...edited... > > There is definitely "a deeper character" to Draco, IMO. I'd like to > see him stray from his father. How might he react to seeing Lucius > kissing the hems of Voldemort? What if he decides to disagree with > his father? ..edited... > > ...edited... > > > --jenny from ravenclaw ******** bboy_mn comments: Sorry to cut so much out of the previous posts. Of course, I can't prove my opinion or even back it up with canon, but my take on Draco is that, so far, he simply parrots what his father says and does. But the will come a day of reconing when Draco will have to think for himself, then I think he will see things in a different light. Up until now, Draco has lead a protected and priviledged life. He's never had to deal with the harsh realities the way Harry and the Weasley family have. My own belief is that the first time Draco sees what it truly means to be a Death Eater; Kowtowing to Voldemort, groveling on the floor, kissing V's robe, I don't think it will look that appealing. I think right now, Draco has this image of his father being very powerful, a man who bows to no one, and I think that's who Draco sees himself. Draco is lord, in his own mind; Draco is not lorded over. So when he discovers that being a Death Eater means kissing V's (sorry) butt, his attitude will change. The next great revelation will be when he discovers what murder, and torture really mean. When he hears his victum scream and see real death for the first time, he will suddenly realize that being a Death Eater is not party, party, party. Just my opinion. bboy_mn From fbrown at acay.com.au Mon Dec 2 22:35:39 2002 From: fbrown at acay.com.au (Fiona) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:35:39 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse Racism, & technology (Was: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47611 clicketykeys: > Yes, well, often blood is thicker than water. And I think the Sorting > Hat can see past the petty squabbles that are a part of normal family > life, so that a family that truly likes to stick together (like the > Weasleys) will belong to the same House. Note that the Patil sisters > DID get split up. Just as a sideline - my daughter's high school runs a house system, although they don't have a sorting hat, unfortunately. Instead, the girls are sorted by alphabetical order (Surnames A-F in one house, G-L in the next and so on). Therefore, all sisters are automatically in the same house, reducing conflict at the dinner table. At least, I think that's the theory. However, I also attended this school (many, many moons ago) and when I enrolled my daughter was asked what house I had been in. She (with her B surname) was then put in MY house (for the S-Z group, according to my maiden name), also to reduce conflict at the dinner table. I couldn't care less, but she rather likes the idea, and several of her friends are in the same boat. I know Hogwarts don't do this, but perhaps it can add to the discussion. Regards Fiona (My first post, I think) From rinceceol at netzero.net Tue Dec 3 00:04:51 2002 From: rinceceol at netzero.net (rinceceol) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:04:51 -0600 Subject: The Dursleys; Sirius' "trial" Message-ID: <003901c29a60$6710fe20$60739d40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47612 Ashfae wrote: <> I replied: Chapter 3 pf HPPS/SS: "Harry, on the other hand, was going to Stonewall HIgh, the local public school." Harry would NOT have been going away to school. Boarding schools generally cost money, and a good deal of it, and I can't see the Dursleys spending money on a school for Harry when Aunt Petunia dyes Dudley's old clothes grey for his uniform. ;-) <> Don't I recall Sirius saying that he never even got a trial? He was sent directly to Azkaban? I'll try and find the quote in POA and get back to you... "rinceceol" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/8/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Dec 3 00:24:55 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:24:55 EST Subject: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? Message-ID: <9d.320144f1.2b1d53d7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47613 In a message dated 12/2/02 7:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: > The next great revelation will be when he discovers what murder, and > torture really mean. When he hears his victum scream and see real > death for the first time, he will suddenly realize that being a Death > Eater is not party, party, party. Will be then join Harry&Co? Actually, the more important question here (I think) is: Will the good guys take Draco on their side? Will they trust him? I then said to myself, "Self, they could just give him Veritaserum and find out the truth." Then Self said "Oryomai, you're an idiot." Veritaserum isn't foolproof. And if *I* were any of them, I wouldn't be so quick to trust someone who insulted my family, my friends, and used foul terms about us. Back to my original question: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 00:48:06 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:48:06 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Wand In-Reply-To: <001301c29738$d0890a80$0201a8c0@phx290479> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47614 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Trish in AZ" wrote: > While we are on the topic of wands I have a question. I tried to look > in archives to see if this was brought up, but could not find anything. > In PS/SS Mr. Olivander says, "the wand chooses the wizard" and the tail > feather from the same Phoenix was in Harry's and Voldemort's wand. If > in fact, if it is the Phoenix that belonged to Gryffindor why would > that wand chose Voldemort? > Trishofavalon bboy_mn: Tried to post this once before but I was on another computer and for some reason it didn't work. So here it goes again. I think people are taking 'the wand chooses the wizard' thing a little too literally. The wand doesn't choose the wizard based on an intellectual or moral decision; it's a matter of compatability. My theory is that the wand and the wizard must be in harmony, they must have a sympathetic resonance. Think of the example of an opera singer who breaks a glass by hitting a certain note. When the singer and the glass find a resonant harmony, the whole becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. The combined resonance is enough to shatter the glass. She may sing another note with even greater power, but it doesn't shatter the glass. She may get a glass that is more fragile, but unless she and the glass have that harmonic resonance, the glass doesn't break. The extra power is only generated when the two, singer and glass, are matched. I think this same principle applies to wands. Harry kept trying wands and trying wands, and when he finally tried the one that he had a natural sympathetic harmony with, the result were VERY noticable. Clearly that one combination demonstrated greater power. So when the wand chose Voldemort, it wasn't making an intellectual or moral choice, it was simply a common resonance between the two. So how does that make the wand choose the wizard? Well, it does so because it precludes the wizard from chosing the wand based on intellect or analysis. A wizard can't say I like light honey oak and I've always like unicorns, so I choose a oak/unicorn wand. Certainly he can do it, but there is little or no likelihood of a correct match based on this method. So you 'meet' wand after wand until you find a wand that 'likes' you. Likes you in the sense that the two of you are in harmony with each other. Harry has Holly/Pheonix this time. His next wand, the one that matches him or chooses him, may be Holly/Dragon Heart or it may be Oak/Pheonix Feather, and it may be longer or shorter. Now there is a likelihood that once you have been matched to a wand, it's easier for Ollivander to match you to a second one. He understands the characteristics of all the components, and that allows him to make an educated guess. That's my view on 'the wand chooses the wizard'. bboy_mn From Malady579 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 00:50:56 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:50:56 -0000 Subject: The Potions inconsistency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47615 Steve wrote" > No one knows except Snape; a dose could be a drop, a swallow, or a > gulp. Quirrell, Hermione, or Harry couldn't have possibly know how > much one dose was. There could have been four doses in the vial the > let them move forward to the next chamber, but Quirrell pigged out > with three large gulps, which was far more than he needed, leaving > Harry with just barely one dose. Umm...didn't you just contradict yourself? You were arguing that no one but Snape knows how much the official dose should be, so how could Quirrell *know* to take three "doses" and how did Harry *know* there was only enough for just him? I mean if it was a drop left then I could understand, but would Harry see that drop and believe it would be enough? I guess that is not a fair question on my part though, so I will not place my argument on it. For dose references, I can think of the polyjuice drink, werewolf drink, the veritaserum drops, and the few drops for Neville's toad in the shrinking potion. Hmm, split there. I wonder if the frog drops are for size? So, I guess whatever the dose for the freeze-flame potion is, we are to understand that there is only one dose available for Harry since Hermione did not correct Harry in his assertion. Seems she would of know. :) Phyllis wrote: >IMO, we're definitely led to believe that the smallest bottle is >full. There is no mention of it being half-empty, or of someone >already drinking from it. It's referred to as "tiny," and Harry >tells Hermione "There's only enough there for one of us...That's >hardly one swallow." Harry "drained the little bottle in one gulp" >(PS/SS, Ch. 16). Granted, this isn't enough to conclusively conclude >that the bottle wasn't completely full, but I think the implication >is there. You know that makes just as much sense as Catlady's suggestion. I just read the passage to mean Quirrell had already drank from the tiny bottle, so there was only enough left for Harry. Thus, why I said there was only enough for two people. But, as it has been shown to me, my assumption could be rather short-sighted in this magical world. Sorry about that. :) Ok, that proof is scrapped. Dinah wrote concerning on the flame-freezing charm Phyllis suggested: >But wouldn't it be completely besides the point to make things that >easy? They were trying to keep experienced wizards out - they surely >didn't think they needed to protect it from the pupils alone, did >they? And while Harry, Ron and Hermione managed to get through they >were 3 people, each with special skills. Quirell got through because >he knew what was expecting him. I agree Dinah. Seems if it is supposed to be that easy, then what would be the point. But Phyllis brought up this point: >In addition, Dumbledore needed a way to get in there when he arrived >to save Harry. Unless the bottle refilled itself, he would have had >to have found another way to brave the flames. Well, he could of conjured up another potion or known the secret brick to hit to get past faster. The obstacles are, after all, his brain child. Or even better, Dumbledore, knowing what was coming, had the black flames potion already prepared in the folds of his robe. Hey, Quirrell could of done that too actually. Another proof to there only being one dose period in the bottle. Gee, this logic check point on the obstacle course is too sneaky. :) Melody who thinks those 17 people in the pole who checked that they do not know of MD are probably list elves trying to give Grey Wolf an ulcer. I know *I* was tempted. ;P From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Tue Dec 3 01:31:33 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (Lee) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 01:31:33 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What About a Flame-Freezing Charm? (WAS: The Potions inconsistency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c29a6b$b7bd2640$36e46bd5@6obvijj5cbv4mbn> No: HPFGUIDX 47616 Dinah wrote: > And while Harry, > Ron and Hermione managed to get through they were 3 people, each with > special skills. Quirell got through because he knew what was > expecting him. Bingo. Quirrell knew exactly what to expect. So maybe, after seeing which potions were used by Snape to fill the jars, Quirrell trotted off to the DADA office and whipped up his own batch of flame retardant. When faced with the riddle, Quirrell simply giggled for a bit and downed his own potion, before hopping through the flames like a happy little bunny to admire the mirror. -LD --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 25/11/2002 From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 01:38:39 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 01:38:39 -0000 Subject: The Potions inconsistency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47617 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" wrote: > Steve wrote" > > No one knows except Snape; a dose could be a drop, a swallow, or a > > gulp. Quirrell, Hermione, or Harry couldn't have possibly know how > > much one dose was. There could have been four doses in the vial the > > let them move forward to the next chamber, but Quirrell pigged out > > with three large gulps, which was far more than he needed, leaving > > Harry with just barely one dose. > > Umm...didn't you just contradict yourself? You were arguing that no > one but Snape knows how much the official dose should be, so how > could Quirrell *know* to take three "doses" and how did Harry *know* > there was only enough for just him? bboy_mn responds: Quirrell DIDN'T know how much one dose was, which is why he just took three (in my example) big gulps, and assumed this was probably enough. Harry, on the otherhand, didn't have the luxury of being able to error on the side of excess. So, why would Harry say there was only enough left for one? Because Quirrell left hardly more than a sip. Without knowing the correct dose, one would assume that you would actually have to drink some. That the dose would likely be in swallows, not drops. So, with only a small sip remaining, most people would logically conclude that it was only enough for one. Now if it was life and death, I'm sure Harry would have tried to share that small sip with Hermione. But it wasn't life and death, Hermione had the potion to leave the chamber. She and Ron could escape, and try and get help. -end- bboy_mn An additional, somewhat unrelated point. But Phyllis brought up this point: >In addition, Dumbledore needed a way to get in there when he arrived >to save Harry. Unless the bottle refilled itself, he would have had >to have found another way to brave the flames. bboy_mn: Well, I believe that Quirrell by-passed most of the enchantments by using inside information. So it logically follows that since Dumbledore was the mastermind behind all this, he also knew how to by-pass all the enchantments. Dumbledore didn't need the potions, because he had Snape's counter-charm that disabled the trap. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 01:48:58 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 01:48:58 -0000 Subject: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? In-Reply-To: <9d.320144f1.2b1d53d7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47618 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., SnapesSlytherin at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/2/02 7:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bboy_mn at y... writes: > > > The next great revelation will be when he discovers what murder, > > and torture really mean. When he hears his victum scream and see > > real death for the first time, he will suddenly realize that being > > a Death Eater is not party, party, party. > > Will be then join Harry&Co? Actually, the more important question > here (I think) is: Will the good guys take Draco on their side? > Will they trust him? > > I then said to myself, "Self, they could just give him Veritaserum > and find out the truth." ...edited... > > Back to my original question: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? > > ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ bboy_mn replies: No they won't trust him at first, and even when they do trust him, it will be a very shakey trust. Even if they finally do trust him, they still won't like him. I also think Draco will continue to be 'the back end of a horse' because that's just his nature. He and Harry, even though they are working together, will be at each other constantly. Draco won't become a nice guy, he'll just realize that the bad guys are fighting a hopeless pointless battle. A battle in which even when you win, you lose. Plus, he wants to have a life that he controls, not a life bowing to others. So while Draco will turn from the dark side, when he sees what the dark side really means, he will still be self-serving, spoiled, irritating, and ..... well, Draco. My opinion. bboy_mn From Malady579 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 02:17:53 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:17:53 -0000 Subject: Gandalf-like!Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47619 First, Russ- Clipping can be your friend. So tidy. So wonderful. So precise. :) Russ - Mr. fun_n_games_ wrote: >I only referenced Gandalf to give you the picture of how I perceive >that Dumbledore wishes to "sit this one out" so to speak, but to >train and counsel others on the specific requirements of fighting the >dark forces. I think he is doing this because he feels that someone >has to be trained to take his place when he goes. 150 is old even in >the Potterverse. He is not going to be around forever to defeat the >Grindewalds of the world. I have no problem with Dumbledore training the young. It is, after all, the *point* of the educational system. But, I do not understand the logic behind a Gandalf-like!Dumbledore who has all these wonderful gifts and all these wonderful talents and yet does not enter the fray. For Dumbledore (and this is *not* the Dishwasher!Dumbledore so this a Dumbledore who is not planning anything unless Voldemort comes back to life) to say that he wants to "sit this one out" is an even colder version of Dumbledore in my eyes. It says to me that even though he is able to defeat Voldemort by himself, he chooses not to because he wants to see if the younger generations can. Imitation is the highest form of flattery but if you do not show them something to imitate, then how can they ever learn? Hearing someone can be powerful and *seeing* Dumbledore blast Moody!Crouch's door is two *very* different experiences. I for one got goose-bumps at that part. Still do thinking about it right now. :) Harry learned at that moment just what a powerful good wizard is, and no book could of taught him that. Russ also wrote: >My point here is that Counselor!Dumbledore may not know what the evil >side is cooking up ahead of time, but is usually smart enough to >figure it out ahead of our heros. He usually then leads them along >the path to realization and provides them with the tools necessary to >win the battle. I agree that it is up to them to make the choice to >act. First, If Dumbledore figures it out before it happens, then he *did* know what evil is cooking. You can only truly *help* the hero if you know what to do to help precisely, and based on the fact Dumbledore was always right on in his help, then it seems he does know his enemy quite well even if he did not help create the 'flawed potion'. And Second, Let me understand you here because I am a bit confused. Only a bit...stop laughing. Counselor!Dumbledore is not planning a war plan until the enemy truly returns. (so no flawed potion) C!D knows evil is out there but he wants the youth to rise up and defeat it. (how will they ever learn) C!D plans little ways to help "the heroes" to make them think for themselves. (got to busy the hours somehow) -so then- Bk 1: C!D figures out Quirrelmort is coming after the stone but just picks Harry to win that battle and shows him the mirror and lets him work on his snitch/key skills. (Why Harry?) Bk 2: C!D figures out there is a basilisk turning people into stone and could in fact kill someone but wants Harry to defeat the snake with a songbird and patched hat. (Again, why Harry? Why wait?) Bk 3: C!D knows that Black is after Harry, but upon discovering Black is innocent and shows Harry and Hermione how to help him while letting Peter get away. (Ok, it is obvious why Harry there, so I ask why let Peter get away? Seems he slacked a bit there.) So my question should be obvious. Why is Couselor!Dumbledore so bent on Harry? There are other students that could use some war-time education as well. Why Harry? Seems Dumbledore could have other students involved to win this war and could of been there to get Peter. Why *only* Harry if all Dumbledore is doing is educating him? Russ wrote: >and it is only because of Harry's training in the >first three years that he successfully escaped V in the graveyard. >This is why I think the 4th book is a pivotal novel. It is the first >time Harry was really on his own (no help from Dumbledore) and >succeeded. It was Harry being trained about the three deadly curses and his innane speed that got him out of the graveyard. Well besides the wand thing, but Harry was not taught that. The curses were taught in the 4th year and earlier than normal at that. So it seems, Dumbledore knew they (i.e. Harry) might need it. But, yes Dumbledore did not come running in GoF like in the other three. I cannot, nor will I, deny that. One last thing from Russ: > True? of course not--we all know witches don't > really burn, but use a freezing spell and only pretend to burn! Ok, one question that has bugged me for a while. How, on God's green Earth, can they *fake* burning? I mean, those bored torture-happy villagers stood there until the victim was ashes. Wouldn't the villagers notice the witch was not being consumed? And if they did turn to ashes, then was it a few hours until they popped back to witch human form? And if that is the case, what if there was a wind and blew the ashes around a bit? Argh, this conundrum annoys me. Melody From orlaquirke2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 01:04:48 2002 From: orlaquirke2002 at yahoo.com (Anna Hemmant) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 01:04:48 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys; Sirius' "trial" In-Reply-To: <003901c29a60$6710fe20$60739d40@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47620 Dumbledore > testified that Sirius was the Potter's Secret Keeper, he was found at > the scene of the crime, and most telling of all, there's no evidence > whatsoever that Sirius made any attempt to defend himself. > > Don't I recall Sirius saying that he never even got a trial? He was sent directly to Azkaban? I'll try and find the quote in POA and get back to you... Sirius does say, in GoF that he never got a trial, when the three go to see him outside Hogsmeade. However, Dumbledore does say at the end of PoA that he testified that Sirius had been the Potter's secret keeper. These two canon statements wouldn't gel if we didn't look at the muggle killings that occurred during Sirius' arrest. The ministry of magic may not have believed it would be safe to give Sirius a trial while he was present, because this particular event (they would have thought) would show that his powers were sufficient to prove a security risk. Dumbledore would then have given testimony without Sirius present. Another possibility would be that there was a trial prior to Sirius' arrest, and it was at this point that Dumbledore would have given evidence. Certainly, Sirius wouldn't have had the chance to answer the charges against him. Orla From Sunnylove0 at aol.com Tue Dec 3 01:52:57 2002 From: Sunnylove0 at aol.com (Sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:52:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47621 In a message dated 12/2/2002 5:26:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SnapesSlytherin at aol.com writes: > Will be then join Harry&Co? Actually, the more important question here (I > think) is: Will the good guys take Draco on their side? Will they trust > him? > I then said to myself, "Self, they could just give him Veritaserum and find > > out the truth." Then Self said "Oryomai, you're an idiot." > Veritaserum isn't foolproof. And if *I* were any of them, I wouldn't be so > > quick to trust someone who insulted my family, my friends, and used foul > terms about us. > Back to my original question: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? > > ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ > > I don't even think Draco would go to the trio even if they would believe him. If Draco is as you say, too proud to kiss Voldie's butt, there is no way he is going to kowtow to Harry and co. If Draco turns good, he would either go to Dumbledore, or depending on how much he knows, more likely to Snape. The Queen of Serpents [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alina at distantplace.net Tue Dec 3 02:38:11 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:38:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Parvati and Ron References: <131.17d8051a.2b1d4969@aol.com> Message-ID: <004601c29a75$06694a90$12206418@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 47622 > Ok...I don't have my book with me (you would think I would learn to keep them > by my computer by now! *g*) so bear with me here. > In PoA, during their first Diviniation class (did I spell that wrong), > Trelawney tells Parvati "Beware a red-headed man" (or something close to > that, again no book!) > ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ Actually, that's exactly what she said! And I completely forgot that episode too. Hmmm, could it be a coincidence? Personally, I think it is. I think Trelawny knew that her "prediction" would come true sooner or later. After all, she has a 14 year old girl in the same class as a red-haired 14 year old boy. I think she guessed the chances of there ever being some trouble between the two teenagers are large enough for her to make a rather "realistical" prediction. Alina. From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Tue Dec 3 04:59:07 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:59:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47623 Well, one things is certain about Sirius: people find him a very interesting character to discuss! 1) Slashing the Fat Lady: are the paintings sentient? Audra said: <<<>>> To which I replied: > What could possibly constitute proof of emotion? ... > there is no way to prove > that *anyone* else has them, even other humans. And Audra responded: >>>>I wasn't referring to philosophical proof, which as you correctly implied, we can never have. I meant canon proof, as in JKR stating in the books that the painting people are really alive or human, and that hasn't been stated.<<<< OK, I see what you mean now. Yes, it's true that JKR *could* have had, say, a class in which a teacher explains that the painting people have feelings, or could have shown us the personal thoughts of the Fat Lady, yet she didn't. However, I don't see this as evidence against the paintings being alive, though. JKR doesn't generally provide much of that type of proof of sentience for anyone, except Harry. (JKR does talk about sentience in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, although the main point seems to be that wizards have a hard time telling Beings from Creatures.) Both Audra and Monika said the paintings resembled computer simulations, which show complex behavior but aren't sentient. I don't see the paintings as like computer simulations. They seem far less predictable, and seem to do a lot of things under their own initiative. I could trade a character from a computer game with a friend, but I'd be pretty freaked out if characters just decided for themselves to go wandering off to another machine. Also, I can't see why the Hogwarts staff would negotiate with the Fat Lady to come back, if she were just a simulation. Monika said that the Fat Lady: > wasn't born, and she can't die. She doesn't have to eat or drink to > stay "alive", and she can't reproduce herself. So, while Sirius' > violent act might shock a lot of people, it's not murder or even > attempt at murder. I'd say ghosts fit these properties, too. So far, we have not seen any way to destroy a ghost, but let's suppose that there were some way to do that. I'd say it would be wrong to destroy Nearless Headless Nick. Audra said: >>>>The portraits, I assume, are created by wizard artists, and wizards are powerful, but not gods. I don't think they would have the ability to create a life like that.<<<< Oh, I definitely agree that JKR's wizards aren't gods and can't create life. I hadn't meant that wizards could create people to inhabit the paintings. Many cultures believe that once a human-like representation has been created, a spirit may decide to inhabit that representation. That's the sort of thing I had in mind. If it worked this way in the Potterverse, it would be possible for some pictures to be sentient and not others. Some cultures also believe that taking a photograph "steals" a little bit of the person's soul. This would explain how the photos move, although I really don't think JKR intended for things to work this way in the Potterverse. Still, if each did steal a bit of the person's soul, that would explain why Lockhart is so vapid, wouldn't it? ;-) I have the view that the painting are real beings with thoughts and feelings, inhabiting a complex world of which the paintings are the connection with the world inhabited by Harry and other humans. (It would be very interesting if Harry got to go to the painting universe!) Other people have a different theory, that the paintings are just wizard-made simulations. I think at the moment, the books don't rule out either interpretation. We'll just have to wait and see if later books clear this up. 2) Now, back to the ever-popular question of whether Sirius has PTSD. a) Did Sirius have enough time to recover between PoA and GoF? Monika said Sirius had four months to recover between PoA and GoF. I replied: > I believe the summer break at Hogwarts is only two months (July and August), not four. Monika responded: >>> Buckbeak's "execution" took place on June 6, and apparently Sirius stayed in England a little bit longer, but safely hidden (following his own words in his letter to Harry). And even though term begins on September 1, he only came back near the end of October (if I remember well), so your argument doesn't hold up here. And I repeat that I don't believe he entirely recovered during this time, just that he was functional again when he came back. That's a huge difference.<<< I was counting just the months that we don't hear from Sirius. By the time Harry writes to him in August, Sirius seems quite different than in PoA, so that was the time period I was counting. OK, I see now where you got the four month period. As for whether I think this is enough time to explain the change in Sirius' behavior, I think Natasha said it best, in post 47400: "It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have PTSD. I completely agree that if he did have it in PoA he made the recovery of the century by GoF. I can't imagine anyone getting over PTSD that quickly." Monika said: "you can't just say he recovered too quickly because you believe him to be a bad tempered guy." Have you read what I wrote already on this thread? If I have an ax to grind, it's not that I want to believe Sirius is a certain way; it's that seeing Sirius as recovering quickly implies that traumatized people should be able to "just get over it", even though that it doesn't work that way in the real world. b) Does Sirius have the symptoms of PTSD? Monika said: >>>A person who has PTSD is afraid the original trauma will happen again, and in Sirius' case, that is the destruction of the Potters. Of course he is afraid the same thing might happen to Harry, now that he's aware that Pettigrew isn't dead after all. He might himself call it an "obsession" that made him break out of Azkaban, but if this isn't a deep anxiety/fear, I don't know what would be.... I'd say his symptoms developed *after* his original trauma (the murder of the potters and his "involvement" in it)<<< These things have already been discussed in the past few days. You didn't respond to my earlier posts, where I discussed these specific issues. Monika said: >>>Then there's the incident when [Sirius] slashes Ron's bed hangings, and when he chokes Harry in the Shrieking Shack. *All* these situations mimic a part of his original trauma, not being able to finish off Pettigrew, which provokes this kind of overreaction. Judy might still disagree here, but those *are* classical PTSD symptoms.<<< Yeah, I definitely disagree. The classic symptoms of PTSD are anxiety and an inability to stop thinking about the trauma, not choking people and slashing things. Most people with PTSD are not violent. Monika added: >>>BTW men suffering from PTSD were usually stigmatised as "hot-tempered", violent and impulsive for a long time, before the disorder was officially recognized as such and included in the DSM in 1980.<<< Most people who have been traumatized do not attack others. If someone responds to a trauma by becoming violent, I'd say that's strong evidence that the person had a tendency to violence all along. In the US at least, PTSD does not qualify for the insanity defense; it doesn't excuse violent people from punishment. Whether past trauma *should* excuse violence is a philosophical question, so there's really no way to resolve it factually. However, judging by the books, JKR agrees with me that trauma is no excuse for violence. Just look at how she portrays the hero of her books, Harry. He's been mistreated by the Dursleys most of his life, is in constant danger from Voldemort and his followers, and suffers greatly during PoA from the flashbacks of his parents' murder. Yet, he doesn't go around choking people and slashing things. He can't bring himself to kill Sirius, even when he thinks Sirius is a mass murderer trying to kill him, and he later spares Peter's life. Doesn't this indicate that Harry has much less of a propensity for violence than does Sirius? Monika also said that perhaps Sirius' behavior was due to an acute stress response. I think this fits better than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, although there is still the problem that JKR doesn't portray Sirius as having signs of anxiety, only rational concern for Harry, and that most people having an acute stress reaction aren't violent. c) Plot Constraints I said: >> I can't see the argument that Sirius "really" has PTSD but JKR just >> didn't write him to fit the disorder because of plot constraints. And Monika said: > Here I can't follow. My point is, we can look at fictional characters in one of two ways. We can look at them as fictional constructs, in which case we might say "Sirius was written a certain way to fit the plot constraints." *Or*, we can treat them as if they were real people and ask "If Sirius were a real person, would he fit the criteria for PTSD, given the behaviors he exhibits?" But, it doesn't make sense to do both at the same time. If we start guessing what JKR *would* have done, had the plot constraints been different, we could say just about anything about just about any character. I mean, someone *could* say that the Dursleys would have been nice people, if only JKR hadn't needed a foster family that gave Harry a hard time, but what would be the point of that? We're analyzing the characters as they are written, not as they might have been in a different plot. Maybe in a different story, there would have been a Sirius-like character that would fit the definition of PTSD really well, but the actual character in this actual story doesn't. 3) Summary Let me finish by quoting Natasha again: "You know, some people just aren't consistent people... maybe he's one of them. Sirius seems to me to be a very complex person. But until the 5th book arrives we can only speculate as to what he's really like." I hadn't previous thought about the possibility that perhaps Sirius is *supposed* to be inconsistent, but now that Natasha has brought it up, it makes a lot of sense to me. (And gets JKR off the hook for writing him inconsistently!) -- Judy Serenity From kaityf at jorsm.com Tue Dec 3 05:34:40 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 23:34:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ludo Bagman: missing DE? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021202215950.034c4cb0@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47624 I'm sorry to be coming in late on this thread, but I must have missed it and searching for this topic led me to this very recent discussion. On 11/23/2002 theresnothingtoit suggested that Ludo Bagman could be the missing Death Eater at the graveyard scene in GoF: >Someone else who is slightly >suspect, who *would* be fool enough not to turn up when his tattoo >burned. Ludo Bagman. Ashfae responded: >I was under the impression that Bagman never was a Death Eater. He >passed on Ministry secrets to a confirmed Death Eater... >His jabbering about how he >didn't realize he was giving info to the evil side instead of the good >side seemed pretty authentic, particularly given what a dunce he is > I would say that this is exactly the impression that we are supposed to have. I have been doing some thinking about Bagman and taking a look at what he does and says and what Voldemort says. I agree with Penny R who says: Ashfae: >I do find Bagman's character suspicious for several reasons. First, >there is the accusation of being a Death Eater. He was found to be >passing on information to Voldemort's supporters. He claimed >ignorance, and was let off. Not only did he claim ignorance, but people at his trial were so impressed with his sports status that they didn't even want to think about his being a bad wizard. In fact, they applauded him. He never really had to deny much of anything. He played dumb and what he said really didn't make any sense. He was accused of *passing* information to Voldemort's supporters, but he says he thought he was *collecting* information for "our side." Now how can you mistake the direction information is flowing? If I tell someone something, how can I confuse it with them telling me something? No one, though, wanted to hear of it, and when Crouch wanted to give him prison time, witches and wizards grew angry. Ashfae: >Add to this Winky's assertion that >Bagman is "A very bad wizard!" Gof pg 333. Absolutely. One more clue. Ashfae: >I also find Bagman secretly offering to help Harry win the tournament >highly suspect. So >to me, while it seems a red herring on the surface, and is easily >explained by his gambling problems with the goblins, I have found >myself wondering if there was possibly more to it. If in fact the >goblins and the money problems were a kind of 'smoke screen' to >Bagman's real motive... of helping Lord Voldemort. This is exactly what I think. To add to this discussion, I will go a step further and say that I think that Ludo Bagman is actually, not the missing DE, but the most faithful servant. Many people think that Crouch Jr. is this servant. Some of the clues I think are subtle, but they are there, including the ones already covered above. In the graveyard scene Voldemort says to Lucius, "...you ran from my mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent it into the sky last summer." Okay, we know the DE that sent that mark into the sky was definitely Crouch Jr. However, Voldemort calls him *a* faithful servant. Not *my* faithful servant, not *my most faithful* servant. When Barty Jr. is telling all under the veritasserum, he says, "My master knew that I was still his faithful servant -- perhaps his most faithful of all." This is simply what Barty Jr. thinks. Nowhere does Voldemort confirm this idea. Not specifically. Barty Jr. goes on to say that Voldemort told him that he needed to place *a* faithful servant at Hogwarts. Again, it's not a specific one. It's not *the* most faithful servant. It makes us think that Barty Jr. is that most faithful servant. Back to the graveyard scene, Voldemort says of the last of the three missing DEs, "one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already entered my service...He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight." Again, people think this refers to Barty Jr. because we know he is working for Voldemort at this point and he is definitely considered by Voldie to be *a* faithful servant. We also know that it is through Barty Jr. that Harry's name is entered in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. However, Bagman is the Head of the Department of Games and Sports at the Ministry of Magic and it was here that the idea to bring the tournament back that year originated. I would say that Ludo had certainly already re-entered Voldie's service by the time of the graveyard scene and most likely had re-entered long before that. It is also for Bagman that Bertha Jorkins worked. And he steadfastly refused to send someone out to look for her. There is one other passage, which, I think, has rather ambiguous references. Voldemort is explaining to his gathered DEs his plan for getting Harry away from Dumbledore. He says: "How could I take him? "Why...by using Bertha Jorkins's information, of course. Use my one faithful Death Eater, stationed at Hogwarts, to ensure that the boy's name was entered into the Goblet of Fire. Use my Death Eater to ensure the boy won the tournament ..." I had assumed that it was Barty Jr. who put Harry's name in the goblet, but I can't find where he actually admits he did it. Voldemort's comment could just as easily mean that Bagman put Harry's name in. He was certainly present at Hogwarts. Even if Barty Jr. is the one who did put Harry's name in the goblet, Voldemort says his faithful Death Eater will "ensure that the boy's name was entered." That doesn't necessary mean that person will *put* the name in the goblet. When Harry survives and returns to Hogwarts, Bagman would have a very good reason to take off. I agree with Ashfae when she says the gambling is just a smoke screen. And do we really know that Bagman had trouble with the goblins and debts or is that possibly hearsay? Carol From myphilosophy2001 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 05:43:39 2002 From: myphilosophy2001 at yahoo.com (myphilosophy2001) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 05:43:39 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47625 Oryomai said: >>>>Back to my original question: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco?>>>> IMHO, if Draco does have a reversal of values and begin to fight against Voldy and the DEs, it won't be in close companionship with Harry/the Trio. I believe JKR has already stated that Harry and Draco will not "team up" to fight the dark side, but that doesn't mean Draco won't change sides and contribute in his own way to the "good side." In that event, I suspect Draco and particularly Harry will remain at odds but form a reluctant "working" relationship, not unlike Snape and Sirius. The tense handshake that the men to share -- at Dumbledore's request -- near the close of GoF is along the lines of what I imagine Draco and the Trio will have to agree to do in order to fight for the same cause. -Jess From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 06:12:29 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 06:12:29 -0000 Subject: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47626 - > > bboy_mn replies: > > No they won't trust him at first, and even when they do trust him, it > will be a very shakey trust. Even if they finally do trust him, they > still won't like him. > > I also think Draco will continue to be 'the back end of a horse' > because that's just his nature. He and Harry, even though they are > working together, will be at each other constantly. Draco won't become > a nice guy, he'll just realize that the bad guys are fighting a > hopeless pointless battle. A battle in which even when you win, you > lose. Plus, he wants to have a life that he controls, not a life > bowing to others. So while Draco will turn from the dark side, when he > sees what the dark side really means, he will still be self-serving, > spoiled, irritating, and ..... well, Draco. > > My opinion. > > bboy_mn Anne: Maybe there is a forshadowing. In chapter 15 of PS/SS, Harry and Draco end up together in the Forbidden Forest, following the unicorn blood. They walk together for quite a while until they see something. Together, they inch closer until they make out the unicorn lying dead. Then they see a figure glide to it and begin to drink the blood. It is at this point, when *they are still unobserved* that Draco lets out a yell, and he and Fang take off. Draco's yell is what draws Quirrellmort's attention to Harry. So even if Draco does join the good side, would he be basically useless? Especially as compared to Neville (now there's a twist for you)? Anne whose inner Molly Weasley worries about Draco... From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 06:12:54 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 06:12:54 -0000 Subject: Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47627 - > > bboy_mn replies: > > No they won't trust him at first, and even when they do trust him, it > will be a very shakey trust. Even if they finally do trust him, they > still won't like him. > > I also think Draco will continue to be 'the back end of a horse' > because that's just his nature. He and Harry, even though they are > working together, will be at each other constantly. Draco won't become > a nice guy, he'll just realize that the bad guys are fighting a > hopeless pointless battle. A battle in which even when you win, you > lose. Plus, he wants to have a life that he controls, not a life > bowing to others. So while Draco will turn from the dark side, when he > sees what the dark side really means, he will still be self-serving, > spoiled, irritating, and ..... well, Draco. > > My opinion. > > bboy_mn Anne: Maybe there is a forshadowing. In chapter 15 of PS/SS, Harry and Draco end up together in the Forbidden Forest, following the unicorn blood. They walk together for quite a while until they see something. Together, they inch closer until they make out the unicorn lying dead. Then they see a figure glide to it and begin to drink the blood. It is at this point, when *they are still unobserved* that Draco lets out a yell, and he and Fang take off. Draco's yell is what draws Quirrellmort's attention to Harry. So even if Draco does join the good side, would he be basically useless? Especially as compared to Neville (now there's a twist for you)? Anne whose inner Molly Weasley worries about Draco... From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 06:51:29 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 06:51:29 +0000 Subject: Draco to the Light Side? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47628 >Oryomai said: > >>>>Back to my original question: Will the good guys take/believe a >Good!Draco?>>>> > >IMHO, if Draco does have a reversal of values and begin to fight >against Voldy and the DEs, it won't be in close companionship with >Harry/the Trio. I believe JKR has already stated that Harry and Draco >will not "team up" to fight the dark side, but that doesn't mean >Draco won't change sides and contribute in his own way to the "good >side." In that event, I suspect Draco and particularly Harry will >remain at odds but form a reluctant "working" relationship, not >unlike Snape and Sirius. The tense handshake that the men to share -- >at Dumbledore's request -- near the close of GoF is along the lines >of what I imagine Draco and the Trio will have to agree to do in >order to fight for the same cause. > >-Jess > I completely agree with Jess - if this is ever to happen, it would be very reluctant. And I honestly do not believe it ever will. I think that if anything, if Draco does anything to promote what we know as the "side of good", it might well be in concert with his death in the last book. But I think, more likely, that not all will end tidy and rosy in the wizarding world; I don't think that, even with the defeat of Voldemort, that the "purebloods" holding an elitist attitude about bloodlines is going to change. I'm finding this a little hard to put into words, but while Lucius Malfoy doubtless holds true to attitudes that purebloods are better than muggles or mudbloods, and has instilled that attitude in his son, Voldemort's movements have definitely not been all about enfranchising the purebloods. Likewise, assuming he's defeated in the end, that's not going to make the people who sincerely do believe that pureblood is the only way to go (and might even point to Riddle's/voldemort's own mingled bloodline by way of proof!) change their hearts and minds and do much more than live resentfully with the regime that's left in charge at the end. (kind of like English subjects who didn't take a side in the American Revolution, but really secretly wanted to remain English; they were left living in America when it was all done.) Anyway, I think Draco's privileged background will be in ruins and even if Dumbledore doesn't say so to him, the sense will be "get your backside out there and make something of yourself without your dad's money or estate behind you". I don't think that will make him happy. Something to keep in mind is that, while the nature of this book means that good and evil are fairly sharply drawn most of the time, and evil is somewhat-self-identified, most people don't believe they are on anything other than the right side - therefore, the side of good. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From fun_n_games_2663 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 04:13:00 2002 From: fun_n_games_2663 at yahoo.com (fun_n_games_2663) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:13:00 -0000 Subject: Gandalf-like!Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47629 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" wrote: Melody asks: >But, I do not understand > the logic behind a Gandalf-like!Dumbledore who has all these wonderful > gifts and all these wonderful talents and yet does not enter the fray. > > For Dumbledore (and this is *not* the Dishwasher!Dumbledore so this a > Dumbledore who is not planning anything unless Voldemort comes back to > life) to say that he wants to "sit this one out" is an even colder > version of Dumbledore in my eyes. It says to me that even though he > is able to defeat Voldemort by himself, he chooses not to because he > wants to see if the younger generations can. > > Imitation is the highest form of flattery but if you do not show them > something to imitate, then how can they ever learn? Hearing someone > can be powerful and *seeing* Dumbledore blast Moody!Crouch's door is > two *very* different experiences. I for one got goose-bumps at that > part. Still do thinking about it right now. :) Harry learned at > that moment just what a powerful good wizard is, and no book could of > taught him that. First of all, hello Melody and thanks for responding to the post. I think Dumbldore does jump into the fray when he has to. He pulled Quirelmort off of Harry, He specifically told them to use the timeturner, and he blasted Crouch!Moody. I guess I'm suggesting that Dumbldore realizes he may not be around to beat LV when the time comes, and he certainly won't be around when LV's apprentice or the next dark lord comes knocking. He want to train Harry, but he keeps a watchful eye and provides as much help as he feels he needs to win the current battle, although not the war, yet. Based upon the books to date, I'm certain that if LV showed up in the great hall and started blasting away at students, Dumbledore would not just sit back and watch. I think we would see a great showdown. My point is that while LV was not powerful enough to do such serious harm, he can let Harry blunder along and see how he does. Melody then asks: > > First, > If Dumbledore figures it out before it happens, then he *did* know > what evil is cooking. You can only truly *help* the hero if you know > what to do to help precisely, and based on the fact Dumbledore was > always right on in his help, then it seems he does know his enemy > quite well even if he did not help create the 'flawed potion'. Now me--I do not suggest that Dumbledore knows what LV is up to ahead of time. I just think he's smart enough to have figured out what is going on long before our heroes. PS is an example. Dumbledore knew something was going on before term ever started, otherwise he would not have sent Hagrid to collect the stone. I think Dumbledore could have at that point destroyed the stone and foiled the plan. He doesn't though. Instead he lets Harry see the stone being collected from Gringotts, lets Harry and the gang work out the clues, lets Quirrel make his attempt, and lets Harry try to save the stone--all the while judging whether Harry has the mettle to be the next dark fighter and training him in the process. I don't think the stone was ever in danger. If Harry had tripped up at any point, Dumbledore would have jumped in--and did so at the very end. Meldoy then writes (sorry, I couldn't snip and keep the context): > > > And Second, > Let me understand you here because I am a bit confused. Only a > bit...stop laughing. > > Counselor!Dumbledore is not planning a war plan until the enemy truly > returns. (so no flawed potion) > > C!D knows evil is out there but he wants the youth to rise up and > defeat it. (how will they ever learn) > > C!D plans little ways to help "the heroes" to make them think for > themselves. (got to busy the hours somehow) > > -so then- > > Bk 1: C!D figures out Quirrelmort is coming after the stone but just > picks Harry to win that battle and shows him the mirror and lets him > work on his snitch/key skills. (Why Harry?) > > Bk 2: C!D figures out there is a basilisk turning people into stone > and could in fact kill someone but wants Harry to defeat the snake > with a songbird and patched hat. (Again, why Harry? Why wait?) > > Bk 3: C!D knows that Black is after Harry, but upon discovering Black > is innocent and shows Harry and Hermione how to help him while letting > Peter get away. (Ok, it is obvious why Harry there, so I ask why let > Peter get away? Seems he slacked a bit there.) > > So my question should be obvious. Why is Couselor!Dumbledore so bent > on Harry? There are other students that could use some war-time > education as well. Why Harry? Seems Dumbledore could have other > students involved to win this war and could of been there to get > Peter. Why *only* Harry if all Dumbledore is doing is educating him? This is the sixty four dollar question, that I think will be answered in the future. My guess? I thought you'd never ask! I think Dumbledore has tried to find other "successors" to him. Perhaps James? Perhaps Lilly? Perhaps Snape? I also think either they haven't quite measured up or were killed. Harry of course starts with a head start--he's the boy who lived and he has something on LV in the love protection. He's starts off as a great candidate. He then passes the stone test with flying colors, showing bravery, loyalty, logic, leadership--all the qualities Dumbledore is looking for. Since he does so well in Book 1, why would Dumbledore go looking elsewhere in book 2? Melody then suggests: > It was Harry being trained about the three deadly curses and his > innane speed that got him out of the graveyard. Well besides the wand > thing, but Harry was not taught that. The curses were taught in the > 4th year and earlier than normal at that. So it seems, Dumbledore > knew they (i.e. Harry) might need it. > > But, yes Dumbledore did not come running in GoF like in the other > three. I cannot, nor will I, deny that. Well, actually, I think several other things helped Harry--He had to fight Quirrel hand to hand and overcome his fears to do so. He had to fight the basilisk and overcome his fears to do so. He had to learn about duelling, which he learned in Book 2 and practiced in Books 2 and 3. And he has certainly learned that he can fight LV and win, having done so in books 1 and 2. Not too many full grown wizards could have faced down LV without being frozen in fear if they had not lived through Harry's last 3 years. russ From urbana at charter.net Tue Dec 3 04:48:04 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne R Urbanski) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:48:04 -0600 Subject: Siblings sorted differently Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47630 Clicketykeys wrote: >Note that the Patil sisters >DID get split up. > Yes, I noticed that too. My guess is they *asked* the Sorting Hat to put them in different houses. (Isn't Parvati in Gryffindor and Padma in Ravenclaw?). This suggests to me that Parvati and Padma are not particularly close, or sought to establish their separate identities at Hogwarts early on. We haven't really seen a lot of Padma yet; we know more about Parvati because she's apparently best friends with Lavendar Brown and both she and Lavendar hang on every word uttered by Professor Trelawny (which makes them both a bit suspect, IMO), but we don't really know a lot about either of the sisters. On the other hand, Fred and George Weasley strike me as merely semi-separate physical manifestations of the same, more than a tad insane spirit I'd say separate but they are apparently inseparable. And they are Weasleys, and all the Weasleys WANT to be in Gryffindor. So, there they go. BTW since I'm very new here (like a week) I'm still catching up on a lot of the theories etc. I'm especially enjoying the MAGIC DISHWASHER discussions (and appreciating the cleverness of people who can think up acronyms like this ...I'm so jealous). I'm learning a lot from everyone. I just hope I have the stamina to keep up with the digests (since I seem to be neglecting certain other lists I'm on...) Anne U (trying not to become totally sucked into the Potterverse...still at only 29% obsessed... so I still "have a real life" ;-) "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."? - Albus Dumbledore, in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" "Anyone could be the one to change your life" -- Monte Montgomery http://www.montemontgomery.com From summer2999 at aol.com Tue Dec 3 02:32:50 2002 From: summer2999 at aol.com (Carolyn) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:32:50 -0000 Subject: Umm... do they bathe? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47631 This may seem like a silly question, but it's been on my mind since I first read the books. Do any of the Hogwarts students ever go to the bathroom or bathe? We find very little references in the books to either... there's mentions of Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, Oliver Wood "drowning himself" in the shower in PoA, and Harry taking a bath in the prefects bathroom. But what about anyone else? How would a normal student shower? From the movie, there are no showers in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, and you just never hear about it. Maybe that's because JK Rowling has nothing to say... but I've always wondered, and I'd like to know if anyone has any thoughts on this. And one more thing... do the Hufflepuffs have any females on their Quidditch team? We know Ravenclaw does... Cho Chang. But does Hufflepuff? Or are Angelina, Katie Bell, Alicia, and Cho the only female Quidditch players in the school? Yeah, it seems stupid, but I'm just wondering because of a fan fic idea I have in my head. Thanks for the help... have a nice day. Peace, Carolyn From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 07:10:17 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:10:17 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Both Parents Work? Where's the Canon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47632 The paragraph immediately below is correct. We don't know what Lily's profession was. As for Mrs. Weasley's career being homemake and not working outside the home while we know her, despite the evident poverty of the Weasleys: it's quite possible that she hasn't worked in a long while simply because providing child care and running kids around and getting herself to work might end up costing more, just as it does in the muggle world, than she could bring in. Also, perhaps it's just what she wanted to do, and Arthur agreed. For example, for much of my life, had I been married, I'm sure I could have added more to the domestic economy by staying home, growing food in the garden, being frugal in all kinds of weird ways and concentrating on living a rich life rather than being rich than i could have in the job marketplace, since up until about 3 years ago I was staggeringly underemployed. The Weasleys are anxious with private school tuitions, but their kids *are* all going to 'the best school'. And perhaps with Percy now working and still living at home, the tide will start to turn for them. I do have to confess to being somewhat weary of the constant examples of the Weasleys' impecunious situation; had i been harry, I would have found a dozen ways by now to give Ron or the other sibs anonymous Christmas presents or birthday presents of things they needed; or to have left maybe a few silver sickles here and there when visiting the Weasleys, as if someone had tucked them into a drawer and forgotten them. but maybe the Weasleys are just bad money managers. :-) to be truthful, I would be happiest if that turned out to be the real explanation rather than some convoluted scenario about a "secret career" for Molly Weasley. :-) That's just reality: Americans, in particular, like to think they're all brilliant money managers and that everyone should be, but the reality is far different in most cases. My ex-husband, for example, kept buying extraneous health and life insurance policies despite the fact that we were more than adequately covered (this was when i lived in Australia). I think parents who are poor money managers but good people would be a very realistic way to handle this - and there is some evidence for this with the family trip to Egypt instead of buying Ron pajamas that fit. Felinia > >I don't believe that we are sure that anyone besides Nevilles > was an auror. And, as far as I know, Both James and Lilies >professions, as well as where they got their money have yet to be >revealed. > >The Idea that Lily and Mrs Longbottom were Auros a common fanon >idea tho, so that may be where you have seen it. >See; > >http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/lily.html > >http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/longbottom.html > > > >Ellen, The Pottering Beekeeper > > >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Audra1976 at a... wrote: > > Me: > > Lily Potter and Mrs. Longbottom were both stated to be Aurors, >weren't they? Molly Weasley is the only stay-at-home mom we hear >of. Narcissa Malfoy probably doesn't work either, but that's only >speculation, not stated in canon. By the same token, I can't imagine >Mrs. LeStrange was a little housewife. If I'm right, that means >that while we don't get much information about couples, we know for >sure of more working wives than not. > > > > Audra > _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From rinceceol at netzero.net Tue Dec 3 05:59:17 2002 From: rinceceol at netzero.net (rinceceol) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:59:17 -0600 Subject: Mudbloods and Nukes Message-ID: <009c01c29a91$1ea8a760$60739d40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47633 CK wrote: <> I replied: I'm so glad to finally see someone else draw the comparison between the words "mudblood" and "nigger." To me, it was always obvious how derogatory they were trying to make that word seem, but I've read so much fanfiction that uses the word "mudblood" as a neutral description for a muggle-born witch/wizard, that I've wanted to scream. <> I replied: I've sometimes wondered about this: if there was another great Muggle war (or even in the wars of the past), do witches and wizards have any way of protecting themselves from the dangers inherent in such a war? I mean, if someone nukes England, it certainly affects the wizard populace as much as the Muggles, doesn't it? *shrug* For that matter, what's stopping somone like Voldemort (or any Death Eater) from putting Imperius on, say, the safety inspector at a local nuclear power plant...when said plant plant blows sky-high, that would certainly kill enough Muggles. But then again (don't mind me, I often play my own Devil's Advocate!), we've not really seen any evidence that even the most intelligent of Wizards has any useful knowledge of the Muggle world. Look at Arthur Weasley! He's head of the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office, and he doesn't seem to have a clue, honestly. Astonishing, really, when you think about the number of muggle-born wizards and witches there are out there. Slan, rinceceol --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/8/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 07:43:11 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:43:11 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How Twenty is Twenty? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47634 On "double Potions" - what I have gleaned from the books about that is that the period is twice as long - sort of like having a lecture and lab class in the modern world, precisely for something like chemistry or biology - and because it takes up two regular class periods, two houses are doubled up during that period to use the time most efficiently. Felinia > >Jazmyn wrote: > > I hope people realize that a 'double class' means twice as LONG, not > > double the students.. All the classes seem to have two houses at a time > > represented in them. > >Nope, in that context, double class was meant as two-groups class (although >I >agree that terminology could've been clearer). There are clases that are >taught at each house and year on their own. The most obvious are DADA >(Defence Against Dark Arts), Transfiguration, Charms and History, as well >as >(possibly) Divination. On the "double" type we get CoMC (Care of Magical >Creatures), Herbology and Potions (as well as the flying lessons). > >Potions is, very probably, also twice as long, which is what would be >described in the books as "double" lesson. > > > Notice that not all students take all classes each term. Harry and Ron >don't > > take Arithmancy and Hermione refuses to take Divination, for example. > > So numbers of students per class is not a good way to figure total > > numbers either. They obviously only take each class, maybe once per > > week, as noted they did not have Moody's class till Thursday and it was > > the first day they were talking about it. > >Again, that is not exact: those lessons that not everyone takes are >optional >classes, chosen by them at the end of the second year. On the other hand, >the >lessons we use for these numbers are the main ones, that they take since >first >year and are *not* optional, and everyone takes them. Also, clever listees >have figured out how many classes they have of each lesson per week, and >DADA with Moody was on Thursdays and Fridays (you'll have to search for >the archives for the reasoning, though). > > > There are likely a load of classes we never heard about at all yet. We > > may only be seeing the tip of an iceberg. Why don't all the hidden > > teachers sit at the staff table? Well, the history professor doesn't.. > > the Muggle Studies Professor and Ancient Runes Professors are never > > mentioned sitting there either. > > > > Jazmyn > >While we cannot discount that there are missing teachers from the main hall >just like Binns and Trelawney, the excuses wear a bit thin for each of >them. >Those two you mention have not been pointed out because Harry doesn't >know them, or because they were sitting on the left side of the table in >the >choosing ceremony in GoF. > >I personally discount that there are lessons Harry hasn't told us about. >After 4 >years, I find it hard to believe that he has ignored every single lesson, >homework and exam of a class. > >Hope that helps, > >Grey Wolf, whose views on this thread can be found at #43367, when Steve >last brought up this up, and is not going to repeat himself. > _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Dec 3 11:25:29 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 06:25:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: <46.31d660ea.2b1deea9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47635 I was writing this whilst Pip was responding to my post. I will reply to her separately. Grey Wolf: > Eloise wrote: > > If you regarded MD invalidated by what JKR said, wouldn't that mean > > that you were taking into account authorial intent? > > No, because at that point it would be canon. Everything stated by JKR > (unfortunately) is canon, whether it makes sense or it doesn't. Eloise: I beg to differ. I'm sorry; as far as I'm concerned, *canon* refers to a writer's works, not to their opinions of or comments on those works.. "canon (4) the authentic works of a particular author or artist." (Oxford definition) And that, as far as I am aware is the generally accepted view of canon on this list. I know there is some disagreement over this, but we have discussed authorial intent before and I am firmly in the camp which believes that once a work is in the public domain, it has an independent existence and although its author may have interesting things to say about it, his/her interpretation is not the only valid one. Just as, to use an analogy I have used before, a composer's interpretation of his own composition is not the only valid one. > > > Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking? Grey Wolf: > > No. Metathinking refers to the method of theorizing based on "this is a > book". > > Eloise: Ah...I see. I think. Metathinking is *theorising* based on "this is a book", but the rejection of a theory on the basis of "this is a book" is *not* metathinking. You acknowledge that "this is a book" by acknowledging that there is an author, whose views could invalidate MD. This is not metathinking. I acknowledge that "this is a book" by acknowledging the existence of an author who brings many (analysable) literary skills and influences to bear on her work. But this, you say, *is* metathinking. Sorry, I'm still confused. The difference is still too subtle for me. Grey Wolf: Could you have For example: "Because it's a book, we can expect a happy ending > with Voldemort vanquised and Harry victorious. We can expect the hero > or his sidekick to get the girl. Etc". I don't like metathinking > because it depends on what book you think you are reading, which is > what I said when I refered to the three authors. The easiest, I think, > is Shakespeare: take a look at Romeo and Juliet. Now, supose you've > only got the first acts. Metathinking will tell you: it's a romantic > comedy: they fall in love, love conquers all, and they live hapily ever > after. And then comes the shock - look, the author was leading us down > the garden path. Eloise: But I think you'll find that those who don't accept MD are doing quite the opposite, pointing out that HP incorporates many different literary genres and influences, that there are different themes going one simultaneously, that MD actually *limits* the future course of the series, character development, etc. There are others who could explain that better than I can. Those of us who do not embrace the "no metathinking" school of interpretation still base our theories strictly within canon. If we don't, someone will very quickly throw a yellow flag at us. The difference between us I thought, before your stated willingness to accept JKR's potential opinion as canon, was merely that we theorise whilst acknowledging that the HP series is a piece of literature, and as such has an external context. In fact, I personally would go even further and say that even if it were not a piece of literature, if it were the 'historical' account of a series of events, I would still question MD, being one of those who fashionably denies the existence of objective historical truth (all accounts are subject to the interpretation of the narrator.) (1) Grey Wolf: > > Of course, people that do in fact like metathinking are much better at > it than I am and they might take that sort of thing into account, but I > am reluctant to believe in their conclussions, because their methods > are already very doubtful. Eloise: Thank you for that acknowledgement. I think we do have a modicum of sophistication in that direction. The fact that HP is a book in no way convinces me that the series is to have a happy ending. I *hope* it will have a satisfactory ending, one that makes some kind of logical, thematic and emotional sense, that ties up enough loose ends whilst still leaving us to ask questions, that avoids cliche. But whether that involves unalloyed joy or an element of tragedy, I can't predict. Grey Wolf: They can try and convince me that *their* > view of the books is the correct one, and that they really do know > where JKR is going, but I'll choose not to believe them - because JKR > has managed to twist my expectations sistematically in every book, no > matter how I tried to see it coming. Eloise: Has any of us tried to do that? I have never said that I *know* where JKR is going. I draw a firm distinction between theorising based on the canon we already have and speculation as to what might happen. You may have noticed that some of us are very happy to speculate about back stories, try and work out what *is* happening, but are much more reluctant to make firm predictions about what *will* happen. For example, many of us who are confirmed non-SHIPpers are more than happy to speculate about possible past relationships. But who tries to convince anyone that they ought to accept their views as correct? With the greatest respect, Grey Wolf, the only person I can ever remember suggesting I should 'convert' to their own POV, is you. Grey Wolf: > > Authorical intent is another thing: it is what metathinking tries to > guess by looking at "similar" books (this is subjective: every person > seems to use different books for that cathegory). The difference > between one and the other is that only JKR can use authorical intent, > and is canon. Metathinking is trying to outguess her, and my experince > says that that particular game is doomed to failure. Eloise: Well, if that's what metathinking is, then I don't think I or many of MD's other critics have anything to worry about, because we're *not* trying to outguess JKR, just acknowledging that the books do not exist in a vacuum and taking that into account when theorising. I would have said, to be honest, that *you're* trying to outguess her. You, after all, are the one who is saying that JKR could scupper your whole theory. I, OTOH, have an open mind about how the series will develop. I acknowledge certain themes, I have certain instincts about some things, but the only thing I *expect*, or rather hope for, is to be surprised. I don't really understand what you're saying about authorial intent and canon. Could you re-phrase? Grey Wolf: > (and you quoted me), that's just me - if you feel you're up to the task > of outguessing Jo, give it a try. Who knows? you might even get it > right. I just say that I know *I* won't. (That having said, I do > indulge in metathinking myself from time to time but, no matter what > theories came out of it, I always treat them with very high suspicion) > > > If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's > > authorial intent matter one jot? > > Internal evidence is the same thing as canon. JKR's word is *also* > canon. Thus, if JKR states that there is no MD, there is not: she's the > one that created the place, she's the one that has power to bring it > down. Which is not the same as metathinking, I insist. Eloise: Internal evidence tells us about themes, the author's concerns and attitudes as much as it does about possible plot machinations. We have evidently reached an impasse over authorial intent and canon. *I* insist that authorial intent is irrelevant and that JKR's views which are published outside canon are not of themselves canonical (although they may elucidate canon.) As for what metathinking means, you're the expert, being the one who, I believe, introduced it into the field of literary criticism. I confess I find it difficult to follow its vaguely fluctuating nuances. > (On a tangent, there is certain "softness" to JKR's word which makes it > less "canon" than what is written in the books. If JKR suddenly > announces in an interview that Hagrid wasn't taken to Azkaban, but to > another prison, it would drive many people on the list mad, since it is > a fragant violation of hard canon. And, knowing us, we'd find a > plausible reason none of us would really believe but would use, for > sake of our sanity.) Look, either JKR's erm, non-canonical word is canon, or it isn't. > > > Grey Wolf: > >> All MAGIC DISHWASHER tries to do is explain what has happened > >> so far,from the most rational point of view possible... << > > > And the above, that it is JKR, not Dumbledore, who is orchestrating > > events is *my* most rational point of view. > > > > ~Eloise > > Ah, but there's the catch: you've used it yourself. By introducing JKR > into the equation, you're doing the same thing as if Newton had > introduced God (i.e. a supernatural entity creator of the universe, in > case you don't happen to be from a monotheistic religion) into the > equation. Are you suggesting that JKR might not exist? ;-) Science assumes that there is no supernatural purpose to the > > Universe, I thought the duty of science was to be open-minded and to seek to explain the universe in the best way it can. Many scientists *do* believe in an underlying, supernatural causative or organising being, directly as a result of their studies. If the existence of God were a scientifically proven fact, or at least a currently accepted scientific paradigm, then scientific investigation would have to take that into account. (Since the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, I regard it as a rather unfair comparison.) OTOH, I believe that JKR exists and is the author of a series of books about Harry Potter. I therefore take that into account in interpreting the books. Grey Wolf: and you'll find that most of my theories in the list follow > > the same path. Now, you may want to think that this is not the case > (i.e that there are things that happen in the books that are > plot-driven, or that JKR thinks necessary for character development, or > for angst building, or whatever), and *that* is what metathinking is. I > dislike that sort of reasoning intensively, because I prefer my books > to be free of "authorical intent" (but not in the sense you've used it) > - that is, that they are not puppets in the author's hands. If that > happened to be the case, the books would loose all their interest in my > case. What is going on here? I'm the one who says that authorial intent is irrelevant! You're the one who insists that JKR's opinions of what is happening in her books, which surely by any reasonable interpretation means JKR's authorial intent, should be taken into account. 'Authorial intent' has an established meaning. Please don't confuse the issue by using it to mean something different. If you do that sort of thing someone, sooner or later, will accuse you of Humpty Dumptying. But, given that you do acknowledge that JKR exists and that she has actually written and planned these books, how, pray, did she do it without reference to developing plots or characters or orchestrating their actions? Or to put it the other way round, how did these characters come to act in these ways, make these decisions, speak these words, without the creative, guiding hand of the author? Look, let me go back to music. Take a piece like - oh I don't know, say the first movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, or of a Beethoven Symphony or of a Haydn quartet, it doesn't matter. All those pieces of music are different. All are great. When we listen to them, we experience something emotional, something satisfying, something unique. But all of them follow the same form. All of them, if you know anything about musical form, follow the same formula known as 'sonata form'. Their thematic development and tonal structures can be analysed. We can show exactly how they're put together and why and admire the craftsmanship. But like any work of art, the sum is much greater than the parts. For me to try and deny that sonata form had any relevance to why the first movement of the Jupiter works would be arrant nonsense. But the music is far greater than the form which frames it. (2) The same with writing. Of course the author frames the form, takes into account character and plot. But the finished work is far more than a formula. Ar you really suggesting that JKR *doesn't* take these things into account, or is it just that you don't like to think about them, because you think that it will spoil your enjoyment (I confess I didn't completely understand your last paragraph), as some people say they don't want to analyse a score as it will spoil their enjoyment of the music. Personally, it adds to my enjoyment to see the skill at work. Nor is the employment of literary devices necessarily even a conscious decision. To go back to Mozart, he was a consummate master of classical form, yet he just wrote music down, fluently as if it were being dictated. The form is simply part of the language, just as we might speak a whole paragraph without consciously thinking it out in advance. I believe it may be true of authors too: the instinct for plot and character development is there. It doesn't mean they're not a human construct though. Mind you, in the case of JKR we know that there *is* a lot of work involved. Look at the plot hole she discovered in Book 4 and the length of time it has taken to complete Book 5. Did all this take place without JKR considering or character development? > > So, where does that leave MAGIC DISHWASHER? MD was built according to > scientific principles, taken as many pointers from the books as > possible to what is going on around Harry without him knowing, and > putting together a theory that will rationally explain it, *without* > using the will of God Creator (JKR, in this case - do not mistake with > intra-textual gods, which the fantasy setting may or may not have, and > which in HP are, so far, absent). I understand that, although I am not so sure how scientific it is, or whether indeed we can apply scientific principles to a work of literature. Referring to my own discipline, if I examine an artefact (and a novel is an artefact) it is *not* in isolation. In fact it is next to meaningless unless I know and take into consideration its context. When I know its context, I can tell far more about it and it in turn can tell me about the person who made or used it. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, which want's to insist once more, just in case: Metathinking > is not wrong. He simply dislikes it and won't accept it's conclusions, > especially where MD is related. ~Eloise Who would like to insist that she doesn't think MD is *wrong*, but simply disputes its theoretical basis and, having an open mind, will be perfectly happy to accept it as a possible interpretation if the next three books don't contradict it, no matter what JKR says. > > (1) I'm slightly over-stating my case there. My signature file tells you what I really think. (2) I could give a for more extreme example. The serial composers of the second Viennese School (Webern, Schoenberg, Berg) wrote music of searing emotional intesity, whilst composing to a very strict formula whereby all twelve notes of the chromatic scale were used witht he same frequency. No keys, no modulation, no major and minor. No melody in the conventional sense, just 12 note rows. It sounds like a recipe for complete sterility, yet in the hands of a master, real music ensued. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every time we look at it we see a different hue. (Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Tue Dec 3 11:45:21 2002 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:45:21 -0000 Subject: Combined Classes (WAS Re: How Twenty is Twenty?) In-Reply-To: <3DD2DD33.F6EA6A71@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47636 jazmyn wrote: >though only > Gryffindor students were ever mentioned by name in the class, which > supports my stating that 'double' classes are twice as long, not > refering to two houses in a class. Jazmyn is right I think. The term 'double class' is a standard British education term for one lasting twice as long as a normal class. A 'class' or 'period' is typically 45 minutes. The pattern is usually Class-move to next room -class - take a leisure break of 10/15 minutes, then class-move-class. A double period or class just means stay in the same room with the same teacher doing the same subject without a move or break. The experience is usually referred to as 'Double French' or mathematics or whatever. I am certain it never occured to JKR that any other meaning is possible - interesting how other cultural assumptions throw lights and shadows on a shared language... Its my expectation that the reference is there simply as a literary hook to establish the 'same but different' appearance of the wizarding world in relation to our muggleverse. Edis From promethian_death at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 13:42:26 2002 From: promethian_death at yahoo.com (Lady Promethia) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:42:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's Relation to Voldamort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47637 This is only my second attempt at a post, and hoping it's slightly more successful than the last one. So, on with the post. As far as I can tell no one has brought up the theory of the possibility that Lord Voldamort is a relation of Harry's on Lily's side. Now before everyone starts getting into an uproar about that being impossible please hear me out and try and follow my theory. This theory was partially inspired by the lecture I was sitting in a few weeks ago in my anthropology class when we were studying kinship systems throughout the world and comparing them to our kinship system, the Euro-American or Eskimo Kinship systems, when it struck me on a way that Harry could be related to Lord Voldamort himself, through Lily, and it still work that Lily * is * still a muggle-born. Now, to help explain the initial part of this theory, I will use my own family situation to help explain the initial part of the idea, and then expound on it by showing how this would work in my Harry/Voldamort connection. Now, I am the youngest of my father's four children, but my mother's only child. This is explained by the fact that my father has been married twice, in where he had three children with his first wife, and they separated and divorced for their reasons and then my father met my mother and they married and then they, my father and mother, had me. Making me both an only child and they youngest of four children. What's to say that something like this didn't happen in Tom Riddle's (Sr.) case? I thin its kind of close-minded to say that Riddle didn't get re-married between the time of his first wife, Voldamort's mother, died, and his death, by Voldamort's wand, about sixteen to seventeen years later. Now I know there's a hole in that Riddle and his parents were the only ones killed in the mansion, but my theory also does take into account that the second Mrs. Riddle could have been at some type of women's social even or maybe home ill that night. The only thing it doesn't explain is why she wouldn't have been mentioned in the town gossip after the incident or why he was living with his parents. Seperated/Divorce? Who knows, but I'm working on that part. But anyways, I digress back to the heart of the theory, which all relies on Riddle and second Mrs. Riddle having at least one child who is female. Now this riddle daughter, is of course, a muggle herself, just like her mum and dad, who raise her and watch her grow, to a certain extent for Mr. Riddle in that he would have been murdered in her early teens, leaving second Mrs. Riddle and Daughter husband and fatherless, respectively. Now our young Miss Riddle continues growing and eventually meets and marries a young man by the name Evans, also a muggle, and they get married and start their own little family. Of course the rest is history after their daughter Lily receives her letter to Hogwarts School of Whitchcraft and Wizardry. Now I hope that this somehow meets the requirements that meets how Lily could be a muggle-born witch, and still be totally, or not so totally, I believe that would be beyond the point of the theory, unaware "Uncle Voldamort," and also gives a reason why Voldamort would be willing to spare Lily, if anything to study/interrogate her on her family history, and then dispose of her as well. I'm still racking my brain on how Snape might fit into the whole scheme of things, but I'm coming up blank and wondering if any of the Snape theorists might have some ideas on how he might fit into it. Or maybe not. I don't know. Again, I'm hoping that this theory hasn't been brought up before and hoping that even if it has, someone might be able to get something out of this at least. What ever way you look at this theory, I believe that it will be either proved or disproved in the next book, and this is the back ground history of Lily's that everyone is so eager to hear about and will severely test Harry's mental boundaries and what he perceives in his world versus the real world that he lives in, and how he relates and perceives it. Thanks for hearing me out, Respectfully, Lady Promethia From nosref at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 14:01:20 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:01:20 -0000 Subject: Umm... do they bathe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47638 Carolyn wrote: > Do any of the Hogwarts students ever go to > the bathroom or bathe? Me: Maybe the have bathrooms in the dormitories. However, this is not supported by canon. Fer From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Dec 3 14:59:38 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:59:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe? Message-ID: <3f.15472dfa.2b1e20da@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47639 Fer: > Maybe the have bathrooms in the dormitories. However, this is not > supported by canon. The trouble with this is that it's not supported by canon that there are bathrooms in the dorms nor is it supported by canon that there are NOT bathrooms in the dorms. But if it is the latter, then what if they have to releave themselves in the middle of the night? They certainly couldn't leave their dormitiories, otherwise any student prowling the school at night could just say they were on their way to the bathroom. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 15:53:16 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:53:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's Relation to Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47640 Lady Promethia wrote: > As far as I can tell no one has brought up the theory of the > possibility that Lord Voldemort is a relation of Harry's on > Lily's side. Now me: This has been brought up before, and there is a contingent of listies that believes the Harry is related to Voldemort. However, I don't happen to be among them, based on the events in CoS. CoS explored Harry's potential relationship to Slytherin (and by extension, to Voldemort), and concluded that Harry is *not* related to Slytherin (and therefore, by extension, that he's not related to Voldemort, since Voldemort is the last remaining descendant of Slytherin). ~Phyllis From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 16:08:02 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:08:02 -0000 Subject: Catching up: MAGIC DISHWASHER, metathinking, Voldemort's body (Quite Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47641 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > Anne wrote: > > Going one step further, if Dumbledore's intent was for Voldemort to > > use a flawed potion containing Harry's blood, how exactly did he > > *expect* V to obtain the blood without putting Harry through as bad > > an experience as happened in the graveyard in GoF? > > > > Anne > > Note: This is just especulation, since there is no canon for this (as > it hasn't happened and will never have the chance to happen). > > I'd say that Dumbledore's plan was that Voldemort would take longer to > be able to make an attempt on Harry: later, when Harry was more > prepared to survive the encounter. Or maybe I was wrong and Dumbledore > didn't expect Harry's blood to be used at all and the flaw is more in > the fact of using Peter as ingredient. Okay, *that's* where I was confused. I had thought the "flawed potion" part of MD meant that Dumbledore expected Voldemort to make an attempt to get Harry's blood (and thus, necessarily, Harry) sometime in Harry's 4th year at Hogwarts. By the way, I have just read, and *highly* recommend, Pip!Squeak's originating posts 39662 and 40044, and Grey's defenses in post 39854, at the beginnigs of the MD theory These posts also pretty much answered my second big question about MD that I mentioned in my original post, which would have been: How could a Dumbledore who said "Hasn't your experience with the Time-Turner taught you anything, Harry? The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed...", be the man behind the shrieking shack scene? But, look at what we know: -Voldemort is after Harry's life, made his first attempt on it when Harry was 15 months old, and is still after him. -Dumbledore knows the reason why, and as of the end of Harry's 4th year, still hasn't been ready to tell Harry ("when you are ready, you will know"). -So, Dumbledore *must* give special and intense training to Harry in particular. This is both crucial and urgent. Voldemort didn't want to kill a baby boy for nothing. This is big. This makes Pip!Squeak's Shrieking Shack theory, far from being a cold-hearted machination, rather an almost desperate attempt to protect both Harry and the wizarding world. So, to answer my own question: Pip!Squeak's posts make it clear that Dumbledore, though he knows it may not work out, still must at least *attempt* to help. And the MD theory describes one of those possible attempts -- the events at the Shrieking Shack. Dumbledore did not necessarily have all his eggs in this one basket (though so far, we don't see any other baskets, because Harry doesn't), but it was worth trying. > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, who wonders who are the 17 people that have never heard > about MAGIC DISHWASHER or at least stated as much in his poll It definitely does help, and if those 17 people are for real, they should read those posts I mentioned. Meanwhile, I am seriously considering getting one of those dishwasher things... By the way, I mentioned this in a post once before, but it got no reaction: what if Arthur Weasley is using his job at the MoM as a cover for doing a bit of useful spying for Dumbldore? He's in a department which is considered insignificant, has only one old wizard under him, and has the perfect excuse for performing raids on suspicious houses! I'm not sure whether Fudge set this up at Dumbledore's urging, or if Dumbledore and Weasley are just taking advantage of the situation unbeknownst to Fudge, but I bet I'm right! Incidentally, the old warlock Arthur works with is called Perkins. Isn't that who he borrowed the tent from for the QWC? Anne Who notices that there is now an "Anne U" on the list, and feels guilty for taking the name as her signiture... you think I should change it? From bigbish13 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 16:28:04 2002 From: bigbish13 at yahoo.com (bigbish13) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:28:04 -0000 Subject: Spy/Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47642 I have been on the list for a couple of weeks now, but this is my first post, so I will ask forgiveness for any faux pas in advance. In a message dated 26/11/2002 17:32:16 Eastern Standard Time, jack.anders at attbi.com writes: > I wonder if Snape will say he didn't respond when summoned because he > needed to maintain a front for D'dore. Voldie was co-occupying > Quirrel in SS, so that excuse won't fly. But Lucius doesn't know > that, does he? He just knows that Voldie has condemned him. I have read several posts suggesting that Snape could not possibly return as a spy to Voldemort, based on: Snape being revealed as a spy by Dumbledore. Snape's lack of cooperation with Quirrell/Voldemort. Voldemort not being stupid. Every time I see one of these posts I have the same response, so in hopes of alleviating my anxiety, allow me to opine on these matters. Snape revealed as double agent. Though not specifically stated in canon, it appears to me that the trials of the death eaters were not open to the public, and IIRC only the defendant accused of the crime being tried was present. Therefore, unless Snape was being corporately tried, or a DE was on the panel passing judgment, only those present would be privy to that knowledge, and they certainly would not be spreading that type of information around. So Voldemort would have no way of knowing Snape was a double agent, as far as he knows, Snape could have gone with the old Imperius curse story to stay out of Azkaban. Lack of cooperation with Quirrell/Voldemort. Quirrell was not known to be a DE, he just stumbled upon Voldemort, and I don't recall any conversation in canon where Q/V reveals himself to Snape. So if I'm Snape, and I was only working for the dark side, what would I do? I try to get the stone for myself, whether for myself(all DE's want immortality right?) or for when the Dark Lord returns. It is possible that is how it would appear to Voldemort; we know that's what the Terrific Trio thought. What I would not do is cooperate with someone who was not known as a DE, so that they could lay their hands on the stone. I've also seen the opinion that Quirrell knew that Snape was the one who was counter cursing Harry's broom. I don't remember this from canon. In fact I don't think he could have possibly known, simply because the curse he was using required that his eyes be on the broom constantly, which not allow him to look around to see who might be doing the counter curse. When Snape got the hotfoot, both had their had their concentration broken, so he couldn't have known. Based on this, Voldemort's stupidity (or lack there of) would not come into play. So I can't see any reason Snape couldn't return to Voldemort as a spy, though I'm Sure someone will fill this theory full of holes. Bring it on ;) I'm about a week behind on the postings so if this has already been addressed please forgive me. Thanks to all those involved in providing this forum, as well as all the contributors. I really like the list, especially TBAY. Bish From mo.hue at web.de Tue Dec 3 16:38:55 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:38:55 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47643 On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:59:07 -0000, "Judy" wrote: > Well, one things is certain about Sirius: people find him a very > interesting character to discuss! That's the least you can say, even though he wasn't discussed nearly as much as certain other characters when I was a regular participant in this list. > Both Audra and Monika said the paintings resembled computer > simulations, which show complex behaviour but aren't sentient. > I don't see the paintings as like computer simulations. They seem far > less predictable, and seem to do a lot of things under their own > initiative. I could trade a character from a computer game with a > friend, but I'd be pretty freaked out if characters just decided for > themselves to go wandering off to another machine. Then I would strongly advise you to refrain from playing Creatures. At least Creatures 3. ;-) I don't know if you are familiar with neural networks, but unlike the Sims characters, the norns have "brains", that is a neutral network which enables them to learn to a certain extent and make their own decisions - the hallmark of artificial life. Note that this is *not* hardwired, they are unpredictable, what makes the game so fun to play. And in the last instalment of the series, they actually can decide by themselves to go wandering off to another machine through a portal if you play online through the Creature Labs website (of course you have to be connected somehow to other computers for this to work). It's not that I can't see your point, I just want to point out what is already possible. > Also, I can't see > why the Hogwarts staff would negotiate with the Fat Lady to come back, > if she were just a simulation. Do you read a lot of science fiction? Stories that deal with artificial life in the future show complex behaviour in simulations and robots, and I guess we would all have the tendency to treat a "sentient" robot in this way. > Monika said that the Fat Lady: > > wasn't born, and she can't die. She doesn't have to eat or drink to > > stay "alive", and she can't reproduce herself. So, while Sirius' > > violent act might shock a lot of people, it's not murder or even > > attempt at murder. > > I'd say ghosts fit these properties, too. So far, we have not seen > any way to destroy a ghost, but let's suppose that there were some way > to do that. I'd say it would be wrong to destroy Nearless Headless > Nick. Well, he was a "real" person at some point. That's why this would be in fact wrong. And he was nearly destroyed by the basilisk. If he hadn't been revived by the mandrake juice, he would have stayed like this forever. But he had to be treated like a *living* person, just like the other victims of the basilisk, including Mrs Norris who is a living being, too, while the Fat Lady could be restored by Filch like any other ordinary painting. If you don't see a difference here, I do. > Some cultures also believe that taking a photograph "steals" a little > bit of the person's soul. This would explain how the photos move, > although I really don't think JKR intended for things to work this way > in the Potterverse. I'd say definitely not. It's not taking the photo by a wizard that makes them move, but developing the negatives in a special potion (or lotion). If you don't use this potion, they won't move and just look like ordinary photos. > 2) Now, back to the ever-popular question of whether Sirius has PTSD. > > > a) Did Sirius have enough time to recover between PoA and GoF? > > I was counting just the months that we don't hear from Sirius. By the > time Harry writes to him in August, Sirius seems quite different than > in PoA, so that was the time period I was counting. Well, for the first time in 13 years, he could actually feel safe, of course he was quite different from PoA then. I really don't know if you are as familiar with PTSD as you say, but I have the impression that this is not the case. Have you read at least a fair number of clinical research papers about the subject? Or one (or more) books written by a psychiatrist working in the field? > > As for whether I think this is enough time to explain the change in > Sirius' behaviour, I think Natasha said it best, in post 47400: "It's > pretty obvious that he doesn't have PTSD. I completely agree that if > he did have it in PoA he made the recovery of the century by GoF. I > can't imagine anyone getting over PTSD that quickly." Well, this is a statement without proof like any other. No offence to Natasha, but if she isn't a psychiatrist or a psychologist and/or can point me to some literature which supports her statement and proves everything I have read about it myself wrong, I don't see why I should take this for granted. > Have you read what I wrote already on this thread? If I have an ax to > grind, it's not that I want to believe Sirius is a certain way; it's > that seeing Sirius as recovering quickly implies that traumatized > people should be able to "just get over it", even though that it > doesn't work that way in the real world. I'm still perplexed you insist he is "over it". I really can't see this. The fact that he is able to think clearly again in GoF is not a proof that he just got over it, or anyone who is suffering from PTSD would be a "maniac" all the time and completely dysfunctional. > b) Does Sirius have the symptoms of PTSD? > These things have already been discussed in the past few days. You > didn't respond to my earlier posts, where I discussed these specific > issues. So, let's have a look at the messages I have missed. << Several people responded with a theory, of which Monika seems to be the originator, that Sirius is not in fact traumatized by what happened to him, but is instead traumatized by what happened to his friends, James and Lily. Since the trauma of their deaths happened a long time ago, he's had plenty of time to develop symptoms of PTSD. >> << I think this is possible, although it requires seeing Sirius' personality as exceptionally altruistic. >> You think he must be exceptionally altruistic because he was traumatized by what happened to his friends and not to himself? Excuse me, but this leaves me nearly speechless. Seeing violence done to others can very well be traumatizing, any psychologist should confirm this. Of course it's worse if the victims are family or friends. And the fact that Sirius was betrayed by a friend makes it even worse. So, instead of just stating things without giving any scientific evidence, let's have a look at the definitions in the DSM IV: ------------------- Diagnostic Criteria from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders DSM-IV Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present: (1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others. (2) the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behaviour. -------------------end citation--------------- The important part here is "of self or others". While Sirius didn't witness the murder of the Potters and wasn't injured himself (I give you that), he was confronted with the death of his friends when he came to Godric's Hollow and saw the destroyed house and the bodies. He was "white and shaking", as Hagrid tells us. Don't say there was no sign he was in shock. It definitely qualifies as intense fear (Sirius himself says he was scared in the Shrieking Shack) and horror. << If you look at, say, people who had family members killed by Nazis and were then interred in concentration camps, their PTSD symptoms typically emerge after (often long after) they are out of the concentration camps and safe. Both the death of their loved ones and their own suffering were part of the trauma, so they weren't in the post-trauma period until both these events were over. >> The Problem with PTSD is - as I already said - that the course of the disorder (and the onset) is different for each individual. And while there is an artificial distinction between post-traumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder because of the different onset, the symptoms are the same. It's doing anyone a disservice to say they can't have PTSD because they didn't wait a few years before developing symptoms. << So, for the above argument to work, Sirius would have to be so selfless that his own suffering didn't bother him at all. This line of argument isn't very useful for trying to show that Sirius is a nice guy, since it starts by assuming that he is a saint. >> Again, no offence meant, but you obviously haven't understood what causes PTSD or ASD and how it works. You definitely don't need to be a saint to get traumatized by the death of someone else. And that something that is utterly traumatizing for one person, isn't perceived like this by another. That's why you can never generalize when you talk about the causes and symptoms like, say, when you talk about the flu, which will always cause the same symptoms in everyone, and everybody gets infected in the same way. > > I said: > >>>Then there's the incident when [Sirius] slashes Ron's bed hangings, > and when he chokes Harry in the Shrieking Shack. > *All* these situations mimic a part of his original trauma, not being > able to finish off Pettigrew, which provokes this kind of > overreaction. Judy might still disagree here, but those *are* > classical PTSD symptoms.<<< Judy replied: > > Yeah, I definitely disagree. The classic symptoms of PTSD are anxiety > and an inability to stop thinking about the trauma, not choking people > and slashing things. Most people with PTSD are not violent. Well, again I ask you to cite the literature where you get this from. While reexperiencing is indeed a classic PTSD symptom, it's not *all* the symptoms there are. You thoroughly ignore one of (several) of the hallmarks of PTSD, that is the hyperarousal symptoms. Any serious paper dealing with PTSD will tell you that they have to be present just like the reexperiencing. You can't just claim they don't exist or aren't as important, because this is just plain wrong. Let's cite the DSM IV again: ----------------------------- Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by at least two of the following: (1) difficulty falling or staying asleep (2) irritability or outbursts of anger (3) difficulty concentrating (4) hypervigilance (5) exaggerated startle response ----------------------end citation------------------ Note that not all of these symptoms have to be present. But irritability or outbursts of anger *are* common, and if you read papers dealing with hyperarousal caused by PTSD, you will find that violence is a common problem. Note that it is only a problem in male patients, and this has to do with the evolutionary path humankind has followed. It's a fact that the so called "fight and flight" mechanism doesn't function in the same way in men and women. And children never get violent, so your argument that Harry doesn't show any violent behaviour doesn't hold up, because violence simply isn't a PTSD symptom in children, but it is in adults. And if you look around and do a bit of reading, you will also find case descriptions of people with PTSD who attacked others and were acquitted for cause of temporary insanity. And while most people (all women, children and a percentage of male patients) aren't violent, a rather high percentage of men are, and it's just too easy to say they get violent because it is their nature and/or bad character. > Most people who have been traumatized do not attack others. If > someone responds to a trauma by becoming violent, I'd say that's > strong evidence that the person had a tendency to violence all along. No, no, no. Sorry, but here I am adamant. You just tend to repeat everything that was put forward in the past to deny that the disorder even existed and that those behaviours were merely a character flaw in those who suffered from it. > In the US at least, PTSD does not qualify for the insanity defense; > it doesn't excuse violent people from punishment. I'm not very familiar with US law, but I'm pretty sure that I have read about a few cases were it was used as insanity defence. But since the diagnosis is still so "new", there might have been just a few cases in the last twenty years. But what I read in your sentence is that you think people should be punished for something they actually can't control. I think this is a bit easy, you know, even though I hear this quite a lot. I just don't agree with it. That something is sanctioned by law doesn't always make it right. At the risk of getting a howler from the moderators (no, I have no intention to elaborate further on this) what first springs to mind is the death penalty when I try to think of something that might very well be law in some countries, but which I don't agree with. It still exists in western countries (including the US), but I won't agree it's right just because it's the law. I grew up in a country that was divided in two halfs until I was 30, and in the eastern half the right of free speech didn't exist, and it landed you in prison when you dared say something against the government. In the best case you just lost your job and were unable to find a new one. It was the law, but does this make it right? No. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive about it because it didn't happen in some obscure South American or African country but right next door to me where a part of my family lived. But to get back to my point: the fact that people are punished for something that is caused by a mental illness is just wrong in my mind, even if the law doesn't recognize they shouldn't be. Case closed. > > Whether past trauma *should* excuse violence is a philosophical > question, so there's really no way to resolve it factually. However, > judging by the books, JKR agrees with me that trauma is no excuse for > violence. Just look at how she portrays the hero of her books, Harry. Well, Harry is 11, 12, 13 and 14 in the books. This disqualifies him from displaying "adult" PTSD symptoms, I'm sorry. That's a fact, not just an assumption of mine. Go and do some reading about PTSD in children (and adults, including about gender differences) and we discuss this point again later. > He's been mistreated by the Dursleys most of his life, is in constant > danger from Voldemort and his followers, and suffers greatly during > PoA from the flashbacks of his parents' murder. Yet, he doesn't go > around choking people and slashing things. He can't bring himself to > kill Sirius, even when he thinks Sirius is a mass murderer trying to > kill him, and he later spares Peter's life. Doesn't this indicate > that Harry has much less of a propensity for violence than does > Sirius? No. You are comparing apples and oranges here. And how does Lupin fit in here? There's no hint at him being a violent man, but he is immediately willing to kill Peter together with Sirius. And if Remus and Sirius were actually born killers, Harry wouldn't have had a chance to persuade them not to do it, I am sure of this. > Monika also said that perhaps Sirius' behaviour was due to an acute > stress response. I think this fits better than Post Traumatic Stress > Disorder, although there is still the problem that JKR doesn't portray > Sirius as having signs of anxiety, only rational concern for Harry, > and that most people having an acute stress reaction aren't violent. You seem to like to say "most people" and rule out the rest who actually *do* get violent. Your argumentation isn't scientific, I am sorry to repeat it. JKR very well portrays Sirius as having signs of anxiety, only you refuse to see them. And given the fact that she was an active member of Amnesty International for some time, she apparently knows very well how people like Sirius react in certain situations. Her portrait of Sirius in PoA is quite realistic for someone who has suffered what he did. << JKR would have no trouble showing us if Sirius were anxious. Sirius would have a little twitch in his face, or his hands would shake. When the Death Eaters were mentioned, he would "look paler than usual" or "a cold bead of sweat" would appear on his forehead. >> Please go and read the Shrieking Shack chapters and the chapter at the end of GoF when Harry meets Sirius in Dumbledore's office again. Sirius' face actually *is* twitching at some point in the Shrieking Shack (even though I personally wouldn't see it as a sign of anxiety, so I just mention it for the sake of completeness here), he is at the verge of tears when he talks about James and Lily, and there are *two* "shaking incidents". Both within the timeframe of an hour. The first one after Lupin turned up, when Sirius is sitting on the bed, making no noise, pretending he's not there. This doesn't fit the violent guy very well. The second one takes place just after they forced Pettigrew to show himself, when Sirius accuses him to have sold James and Lily to Voldemort. Interesting reaction, that is. But not many people seem to notice it. And when Harry and Sirius are meeting at the end of GoF, Sirius' hands are shaking, at least in my British first edition they do. Then there's the moments when the "deadened, haunted" look in his eyes is mentioned, each time he turns up in person in GoF (except for this third time, but there we have his shaking hands). I don't see why he should look paler at the mention of the Death Eaters, though. << Or, Harry would simply "see the anxiety in Sirius' face," just as Sirius is said to see the anxiety in Harry's face in the "Padfoot Returns" chapter. But, JKR says none of this. In PoA, Sirius is grinning at the thought of killing Peter. In "Padfoot Returns", he seems almost relaxed: he is happy to see Harry; he has plenty of appetite (albeit produced by lack of food), and he's quite able to concentrate.>> Yes, because, even though he is still on the run, he feels quite safe in his cave. And you still deny the deadened look in his eyes which becomes more pronounced at the mention of Barty Crouch jr. (at this point, he doesn't know yet he's still alive and that he was really a Death Eater), but which is *always* present, this is clearly stated. As for him grinning in the Shrieking Shack, you don't want to claim seriously that he was joyfully grinning at the thought of killing Peter, do you? I won't go as far as saying he was deranged, but IMHO he wasn't entirely sane at this point. But then, lots of people also deny he had a nervous breakdown when he was arrested and prefer to say he laughed at the irony of the situation because he really thought it was funny. I just discussed this a bit off list with a friend who is actually studying psychology, and she just shook her head. And yes, she agrees with me that Sirius is suffering from PTSD and that this is a valid explanation for his violence in PoA. As for discussing the PTSD issue further, I would like you to point me to some references that support your argumentation. > > > c) Plot Constraints > My point is, we can look at fictional characters in one of two ways. > We can look at them as fictional constructs, in which case we might > say "Sirius was written a certain way to fit the plot constraints." > *Or*, we can treat them as if they were real people and ask "If Sirius > were a real person, would he fit the criteria for PTSD, given the > behaviours he exhibits?" But, it doesn't make sense to do both at the > same time. I disagree again. ;-) Yes, it does make sense to do both at the same time, and you know why? Because this is the essence of good story telling. A story that doesn't do this will never ring entirely true. And JKR is one of those - alas rare - writers who have the knack for it. Monika From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 16:45:31 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:45:31 -0000 Subject: Umm... do they bathe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47644 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Carolyn" wrote: > This may seem like a silly question, but it's been on my mind since > I first read the books. Do any of the Hogwarts students ever go to > the bathroom or bathe? > > ...edited... > > Thanks for the help... have a nice day. > > Peace, > Carolyn bboy_mn comments: Well, unless it's in Slash Fan Fiction, it's unlikely you will ever hear about Harry, Ron, and Neville having long hot showers together. But I think if you look at the school as being modeled after any boarding school, it makes sense that in the 'school' area are common bathrooms that students use during the day, like Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. The kind of bathrooms you find in all schools. Logically, in the dorms, there are dorm bathrooms and showers; separate ones for boy and girls, of course. Then the same logic would assume that there are bathrooms and showers in the Quidditch locker rooms. I assume it was in the Quidditch locker room that Wood was 'drowning himself'. But you are right we never hear about bathrooms and showers. Harry and the Weasley brothers are out side having an hours long snowball fight before the Yule Ball. But, when it starts to get dark, do they go take a shower and get dressed? No, they just go get dressed. They get up in the morning and get dress; not showered and dress. Samething at night, straight from clothes to pajamas; not clothes, shower, pajamas. That's the only specific example that comes to me at the moment, where you would logically think a brief 'in passing' mention of showering or bathing would appear. I know there are others, but with out going back through the books and sorting them out, I can't think of any more at the moment. Just a thought. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 17:07:37 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:07:37 -0000 Subject: Combined Classes (WAS Re: How Twenty is Twenty?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47645 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "edisbevan" wrote: > jazmyn wrote: > >though only Gryffindor students were ever mentioned by name in the > >class, which supports my stating that 'double' classes are twice as > >long, not refering to two houses in a class. > > Jazmyn is right I think. > > The term 'double class' is a standard British education term for one > lasting twice as long as a normal class. > > ...edited... > > I am certain it never occured to JKR that any other meaning is > possible - interesting how other cultural assumptions throw lights > and shadows on a shared language... ...edited... > > Edis bboy_mn a brief comment: I'm sure we all understand by now that both the standard definition as well as the book typically refer to, for example, double potions as meaning two class periods together. However, when I made the original post, I really didn't have a good term to use that made the distinction between 'double classes' as in Gryffindor class and Slytherin class together, and 'double periods' as in two class time periods together. So I qualified my first use of the phrase as follows- Post# 46554 "We have 20 brooms at flying leasons for a double class **(two houses)**. [**emaphasis added] Of course, that doesn't invalidate in any way the points people made about the use of 'double' usually referring to time. I'm not sure if JKR actually had a specific phrase for 'double houses'. That post was a while back, and although we may not be in agreement, GulPlum (post# 46555) pointed out several other places where the number twenty was used. Just thought I would clarify that. bboy_mn From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 17:32:50 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:32:50 -0000 Subject: Spy/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47646 Bish (bigbish13) wrote: > Though not specifically stated in canon, it appears to me that the > trials of the death eaters were not open to the public, and IIRC > only the defendant accused of the crime being tried was present. > Therefore, unless Snape was being corporately tried, or a DE was on > the panel passing judgment, only those present would be privy to > that knowledge, and they certainly would not be spreading that type > of information around. So Voldemort would have no way of knowing > Snape was a double agent, as far as he knows, Snape could have gone > with the old Imperius curse story to stay out of Azkaban. Now me: Welcome, Bish, and nice job on your first post. The trial at which Dumbledore announces to the entire courtroom that Snape was a DE but turned spy for the good guys was Karkaroff's. In Ch. 30 of GoF, (p. 508 UK edition) it's noted that there "were at least two hundred" witches and wizards in attendance at Karkaroff's trial. It's not clear whether the trial was open to the public, but there were a lot of witches and wizards in attendance nonetheless. And some of them could have been Imperio'd former DEs for all we know. In addition, Rita Skeeter, newspaper reporter, is noted in attendance at Bagman's trial. While it's not noted whether she was at Karkaroff's trial, her presence at Bagman's trial implies that these trials are public events. ~Phyllis From the.gremlin at verizon.net Tue Dec 3 17:56:17 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:56:17 -0000 Subject: Spy/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47647 Bish wrote: "Though not specifically stated in canon, it appears to me that the trials of the death eaters were not open to the public, and IIRC only the defendant accused of the crime being tried was present." to which phyllis responded: "The trial at which Dumbledore announces to the entire courtroom that Snape was a DE but turned spy for the good guys was Karkaroff's. In Ch. 30 of GoF, (p. 508 UK edition) it's noted that there "were at least two hundred" witches and wizards in attendance at Karkaroff's trial. It's not clear whether the trial was open to the public, but there were a lot of witches and wizards in attendance nonetheless. And some of them could have been Imperio'd former DEs for all we know. In addition, Rita Skeeter, newspaper reporter, is noted in attendance at Bagman's trial. While it's not noted whether she was at Karkaroff's trial, her presence at Bagman's trial implies that these trials are public events." I'm going to be very bad here and not check the canon, because I have to go to class in 5 minutes, but the thing is, Karkaroff's trial wasn't exactly a trial. He had already had a trial, and was thrown in Azkaban. Either that or he was simply just thrown in Azkaban. The second trial was to see if he could give up enough names for his freedom. Secondly, as phyllis pointed out, the appearance of Rita Skeeter is only noted at Bagman's trial. Since Harry didn't note her during Karkaroff's trial, I'm pretty much sure that she wasn't there. And, since karkaroff was giving up names of former DEs, or current DEs, I doubt the MOM would want this to be public. People would start accusing everyone and their grandmother of being a DE. It's just not good publicity. Thirdly, we don't know if Snape even had a trial, though since DD cleared him, we can guess that he had some sort of a trial, or something to the effect of. Especially since Crouch says that he had already been cleared by the court. How big is the MoM, anyway? Perhaps all in attendence were MoM employees. Okie, late for class, must go. -Acire From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 17:56:40 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:56:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009601c29af5$553e3380$6501a8c0@MFD> No: HPFGUIDX 47648 I wasn't going to comment on this thread but this caught my eye. bboy_mm wrote: But you are right we never hear about bathrooms and showers. Harry and the Weasley brothers are out side having an hours long snowball fight before the Yule Ball. But, when it starts to get dark, do they go take a shower and get dressed? No, they just go get dressed. They get up in the morning and get dress; not showered and dress. Samething at night, straight from clothes to pajamas; not clothes, shower, pajamas. I think we are forgetting that these are 14 year old boys we are talking about (and two 16 year olds). It is a very real possibility that they didn't shower before the Yule ball. Speaking from the experience of having two brothers (same setup as the Weasleys two years apart) and all their friends plus a lot of babysitting experience with boys, boys don't care if they are stinky. Ok, maybe the twins might. They are at the age where girls exist and aren't icky. But Harry and Ron haven't figured out girls yet. One kid that I frequently baby-sit for (to the point where he's often said "So what, it's just Meg." when confronted with something he shouldn't do in front of company) is 14 at the moment and has to be ordered to shower. He just doesn't care. I have watched him spend all day playing football (American) in the yard with his brother and friends and change into dress clothes and go out somewhere nice with his parents. It just doesn't cross his mind at all that he smells. My point being, it probably doesn't cross Harry and Ron's minds that a Yule ball is something with girls and where a shower would be a good idea. They are boys! They don't care if they smell! And if they do smell and it scares off the icky girls, so much the better. Just a thought. -- Meg (who should be studying for finals and who apologizes to all the non-smelly, non-icky boys on the list) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Dec 3 18:36:51 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:36:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Relation to Voldemort Message-ID: <19d.cec7a05.2b1e53c3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47649 Phyllis quotes Lady Promethia: > > As far as I can tell no one has brought up the theory of the > > possibility that Lord Voldemort is a relation of Harry's on > > Lily's side. > > Now me: > > This has been brought up before, and there is a contingent of listies > that believes the Harry is related to Voldemort. However, I don't > happen to be among them, based on the events in CoS. > > CoS explored Harry's potential relationship to Slytherin (and by > extension, to Voldemort), and concluded that Harry is *not* related > to Slytherin (and therefore, by extension, that he's not related to > Voldemort, since Voldemort is the last remaining descendant of > Slytherin). > I think the conclusion is that he is not *descended* from Slytherin. Lady Promethia's theory proposes that Voldmort is a relative by marriage, not blood (a step great uncle?) of Lily's, which I guess could be true. I don't buy it myself and don't really see that it would add much, but there's nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Tue Dec 3 18:49:49 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:49:49 EST Subject: Parvati and Ron/Trelawney Message-ID: <3a.306b503b.2b1e56cd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47650 Alina states; >>Personally, I think it is. I think Trelawny knew that her "prediction" would come true sooner or later. After all, she has a 14 year old girl in the same class as a red-haired 14 year old boy. I think she guessed the chances of there ever being some trouble between the two teenagers are large enough for her to make a rather "realistical" prediction.<< More to the point, she has a very pretty girl (i.e., eye-catching, attention drawing) who lives in the same House with the Weasley *TWINS!* ('nuff said..) This "prediction" was a dead certainty of getting some level of "truth" applied to it -- right up there with the "prediction" that a klutz like Neville was going to break something eventually. Actually, it's a bit amusing how many of these "phoney" predictions come out right on the money. Trelawney has got to have at least *some* degree of a gift. That prediction to Lavendar DID turn out -- on exactly the day she said it was going to. And Sybil can't have had any kind of inside knowledge about it. The problem was that once Lavendar got her bad news from home, no one worked the prediction backwards to the correct interpretation. No, not even Hermione. As Hermione pointed out, the pet had been killed on a different day, and Lavendar only *heard* about it on the day Trelawney predicted. Lavendar is convinced that Trelawney predicted that her rabbit would be killed. But she didn't. She said that the thing she most dreaded would happen on a given day. Clearly what Lavendar most dreaded was getting bad news from home. Which happened. *Exactly* as Trelawney said it would. Trelawney's prediction that someone would be "leaving" them also came true. It's not altogether Trelawney's fault that she puts the most melodramatic interpretation on every glimmer she sees. She's a twerp. But she does seem to be at least a *bit* of a psychic twerp. -JOdel From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Dec 3 18:52:36 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:52:36 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: <46.31d660ea.2b1deea9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47651 Eloise wrote: > I'm sorry; as far as I'm concerned, *canon* refers to a writer's > works, not to their opinions of or comments on those works.. > > And that, as far as I am aware is the generally accepted view of > canon on this list. Far from the truth. The matter is still open, and there have been discussions before on what can be considered canon. And, considering the amount of theories built upon canon from interviews, I think that it is more widely held Goat's onion of canon: "The set of texts carrying at least some authority includes the following: 1. UK editions of PS, CoS, PoA and GoF (unmarked 2nd edition). (1st ed GoF has been ruled out; all translations, including US, and talking books should be considered derivatives.) 2. QA and FB 3. JKR's press releases 4. Direct interviews with JKR (printed and recorded). (Presently, I have about 70 linked from my site - and these are only the ones I've managed to find on the internet!) 5. Indirect interviews with JKR (i.e., the authors says what Rowling told him but doesn't give a direct quote.) 6. The film, standard edition 7. The film, director's cut (Not yet available; possibly never - but we can always hope and petition) All of these carry a certain weight and can convey new information from JKR; OTOH, all of them have certain limitations. In a sense, all may be considered canonical and at least somewhat authoritative - but not equally so. I would suggest a sort of "onion ring" concept, in which we give interpretative priority" (The long version of the "onion ring" can be found at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/canon.htm) (This is probably property of Aberforth's Goat). > I know there is some disagreement over this, but we have discussed > authorial intent before and I am firmly in the camp which believes > that once a work is in the public domain, it has an independent > existence and although its author may have interesting things to say > about it, his/her interpretation is not the only valid one. Very well - it is your right, of course. I am in the oposite camp, which says that whatever the author says defines their world, and still is canon. From then on, we can only agree to disagree. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who won't bother with the rest of the post - the viewpoints are simply too different and he know no easy way of explaining his point of view to Eloise From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 19:24:22 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:24:22 -0000 Subject: How Did Dumbledore Get Past the Flames? (WAS: The Potions inconsistency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47652 I initially posited: >In addition, Dumbledore needed a way to get in there when he arrived >to save Harry. Unless the bottle refilled itself, he would have had >to have found another way to brave the flames. And bboy_mn responded: >Well, I believe that Quirrell by-passed most of the enchantments by >using inside information. So it logically follows that since >Dumbledore was the mastermind behind all this, he also knew how to >by-pass all the enchantments. Dumbledore didn't need the potions, >because he had Snape's counter-charm that disabled the trap. and Melody added: >Well, he could of conjured up another potion or known the secret >brick to hit to get past faster. The obstacles are, after all, his >brain child. Or even better, Dumbledore, knowing what was coming, >had the black flames potion already prepared in the folds of his >robe. Hey, Quirrell could of done that too actually. Another proof >to there only being one dose period in the bottle. Now me again: This interchange gave me a thought ? what if Snape brewed up extra batches of the potion and gave some to Dumbledore in case he needed to quickly get into the room with the Stone? And, for those of us who believe Snape is Ever-so-Evil (I think this is a grand total of one, including myself), perhaps Snape also gave some of the potion to Quirrell. ~Phyllis From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 19:47:15 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:47:15 -0000 Subject: Umm... do they bathe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47653 Carolyn (summer2999) wrote: > This may seem like a silly question, but it's been on my mind since > I first read the books. Do any of the Hogwarts students ever go to > the bathroom or bathe? Now me: We don't hear about the students brushing their teeth or combing their hair, either. I just think it isn't something that JKR feels is worthy of taking up our time with. ~Phyllis From sgarfio at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 19:57:16 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:57:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021203195716.1451.qmail@web21410.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47654 Audra provided evidence that Sirius was suffering from the effects of solitary confinement rather than PTSD: > Slashing the portrait -- This was an aggressive reaction, but I > would like to point out that the portrait was only an object, and I > consider it to be the equivalent of breaking down a door. Judy countered with much evidence of the Fat Lady's sentience: > The strongest evidence that the paintings are sentient, though, is > what happens *after* Sirius slashes the Fat Lady. Most of the other > paintings refuse to take on her job, which implies that they have free > will. Sir Cadogan takes the job, but acts unpredictably, letting > Sirius back in. The staff of Hogwarts then enter into negotiations > with the Fat Lady, persuading her to return by offering guards for > her. They don't just change the spell on the painting, or reprogram > her. These interactions strongly imply that the paintings are > inhabited by beings who act independantly and can make decisions. Hopefully I'm not too late with this, since I still have about 160 posts to read (I took Thanksgiving off; apparently I was the only one ). I think Judy is getting away from the original purpose of Audra's argument here. Whether the portrait people are sentient or not, is irrelevant to Sirius in his state of mind. To get back to Audra's statement that slashing the portrait is equivalent to breaking down a door, let's say that the entrance to Gryffindor Tower is instead an ordinary door with an actual Fat Lady as guard. She asks for the password, Sirius doesn't know it, and she says "I'm very sorry, but I can't let you in without the password." What would Sirius do? He is desperate to get up there and apprehend Wormtail (he hasn't met Harry yet, so I assume his object was to get to Wormtail more than to protect Harry), and he's already committed to doing so by entering the castle and risking discovery (kind of like how a simple robbery can turn into a murder - the intruder is desperate). He's not going to just say, "Thanks anyway, I know you're just doing your job" and go away. No, he would probably shove her out of the way and break down the door. What he actually did to the portrait is really no different: slashing it didn't kill the Fat Lady (whether she *could* be killed or not is moot), she was able to get out of the way, so all he did was "shove" her out of the way and break down her door. This is a perfectly plausible reaction, especially for someone who has been confined for 12 years. Yes, it appears in retrospect that he caused the Fat Lady a lot of stress (maybe *she's* the one who has PTSD!), but that's not Sirius' concern at this point. He slashed the *painting*, not a person, even if we can make a wonderful case that the Fat Lady is a person. I also think it's plausible that Sirius' change in behavior was caused by the Shrieking Shack scene. Before the SS, he is suffering from solitary confinement (aggravated by the Dementors). He is obsessed with getting revenge on Peter. Everybody thinks he's a murderer, so he has to expose Peter while hiding himself for fear of being thrown back in Azkaban. He is the only person alive who knows the truth, and the truth is in fact much stranger than fiction, so nothing less than showing Peter for who he is will do. He's desperate: desperate to stay out of Azkaban, desperate to prove his innocence, desperate to prevent Peter from doing any more damage, and desperate for revenge on Peter for what he has already done. [That last one may be less than noble, but I'm not trying to prove that Sirius is perfect .] After the SS, Peter is at large, but Sirius' focus has changed. He is now concerned with Harry's well-being, and all of the people he cares about now know he is innocent of both betraying the Potters and the Muggle massacre. The people he trusts are aware that Peter is the one to look out for, so Sirius is part of a team rather than "Sirius against the world". He's still on the run from the majority of the world, but the people who really matter to him know the truth. Everything he was desperate to accomplish before the SS has been accomplished. This is how I reconcile his sudden transformation from raving lunatic to caring godfather. I would also like to point out that Sir Cadogan's actions imply that if the portrait people *are* sentient, they don't operate the same way as people do. If the guard were a person, the authorities would simply show him a picture of the known criminal and say "Don't let this man in under any circumstances, no matter how many passwords he knows," and he could be reasonably expected to do that. Sir Cadogan lets Sirius in because he has a list of the whole week's passwords. Sounds like an automaton to me: hear the password, open the door. Of course, Sir Cadogan could just be a moron, in which case this argument proves nothing . - Sherry, Sirius Apologist in Training ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 20:49:23 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:49:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: <20021203195716.1451.qmail@web21410.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021203204923.50364.qmail@web20010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47655 --- Sherry Garfio wrote: > I think Judy is getting away from the original > purpose of Audra's argument > here. Whether the portrait people are sentient or > not, is irrelevant to Sirius > in his state of mind. To get back to Audra's > statement that slashing the > portrait is equivalent to breaking down a door, > let's say that the entrance to > Gryffindor Tower is instead an ordinary door with an > actual Fat Lady as guard. > She asks for the password, Sirius doesn't know it, > and she says "I'm very > sorry, but I can't let you in without the password." > What would Sirius do? He > is desperate to get up there and apprehend Wormtail > (he hasn't met Harry yet, > so I assume his object was to get to Wormtail more > than to protect Harry), and > he's already committed to doing so by entering the > castle and risking discovery > (kind of like how a simple robbery can turn into a > murder - the intruder is > desperate). He's not going to just say, "Thanks > anyway, I know you're just > doing your job" and go away. No, he would probably > shove her out of the way > and break down the door. What he actually did to > the portrait is really no > different: slashing it didn't kill the Fat Lady > (whether she *could* be killed > or not is moot), she was able to get out of the way, > so all he did was "shove" > her out of the way and break down her door. I disagree. I'll admit he didn't hurt her, but it was an act of terrorism. He destroyed her home, not just a door. Luckily, her home could be rebuilt. I'll admit that the painting does serve as a door, and that that is how Sirius sees it. But it's not how she sees it. I would (if possible without sending him back to Azkaban) make Sirius serve some kind of punishment for what he did. And I would feel much better about Sirius if he were to have remorse for any of his actions that terrified or harmed people. But he doesn't. And no one cares. And that's why I dislike him most; because no character (other than Snape) holds him in the least accountable for the cruel/thoughtless actions he did commit. Rebecca ps I'd just like to say (though it has nothin to do with the discussion) that when I initally read PoA and Snape showed up in the Whomping Willow and started raving, I really thought Snape was gone. I thought he was going insane and would be gone from the books. I mean, I really thought sanity had just flown out the window. ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 3 21:22:54 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:22:54 -0000 Subject: Catching up: MAGIC DISHWASHER, metathinking, Voldemort's body (Quite Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47656 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: When the PS idea goes down the drain, he goes for the next > easiest: re-corporating. By his own words, he's becoming mortal once again. But that's no big problem, since he can simply repeat whatever spells made him inmortal in the first place: he doesn't seem to have problems to find ingredients for potions, especially now that he has re-contacted his DEs. > > But that's where MAGIC DISHWASHER and Dumbledore's plans come in: after the near-fiasco with the PS, Dumbledore's plans gear into motion, by gently guiding him towards the flawed potion (my guess is that the flaw is in the ingredients, especially Harry's blood and Peter's flesh). > Normally, the potion would have gien him a new body where he could re-construct his inmortality safety measures, but this new body is going to prove *too* mortal. << I can understand why Voldemort needs to undertake covert operations. He hasn't got the wizardpower for an outright takeover. And Dumbledore needs a counterintelligence force for defense. He seems to be training Harry and his friends for this role, possibly because the Ministry's counter-intelligence service (the Department of Mysteries?) has been infiltrated. After all, no spies-in-real-life theory is complete without some interservice rivalry. That would explain why, for example, Dumbledore would want to bring the Stone to Hogwarts instead of putting the Mirror trap in the Gringotts vault for Voldemort to find there. However, unlike Vapormort, Dumbledore and the Ministry also have Aurors and Hit Wizards at their disposal. So, assuming Dishwasher is correct and Dumbledore *wants* Voldemort to re-corporate, why undertake it by stealth? There were lots of ways for Voldemort to come back, according to Dishwasher post 39854. It's a bit far fetched to think that none of them would work without Voldemort's consent. Instead of undertaking a morally and physically complicated sabotage operation, which can and does go wrong in all sorts of ways, why not just surround Voldemort, force him into a mortal form and dispose of him? It might have been a bit complicated if the "flesh of a servant" flawed potion is the *only* one that would render Voldemort mortal, but Dishwasher doesn't say that, does it? If I understand the theory, it is only the easiest one to get Voldemort to use voluntarily. The attack would need to be planned in secret, to keep traitor Aurors or HW's from finding out about it, but it could have been executed openly, without any need for a Shrieking Shack charade. Non-Dishwasher Dumbledore could also use this option, but of course non-Dishwasher Dumbledore is not required to think that Voldemort must assume a body before he can be eliminated. Canon!Dumbledore only says that Voldemort cannot be killed, which is very different from saying that he cannot be destroyed. Pippin who honestly doesn't think that Dishwasher proponents have horns and tails, but is still trying to understand exactly how JKR's interview statement that "Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness" http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html works with the MD theory if "goodness" is neither relative (all burning building illustrations) nor compromised. The idea that one can be just a little bit unprincipled *is* the Devil's argument, no? From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 21:23:35 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:23:35 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: <20021203204923.50364.qmail@web20010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47657 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rebecca Stephens wrote: > >REBECCA: > ps I'd just like to say (though it has nothin to do > with the discussion) that when I initally read PoA and > Snape showed up in the Whomping Willow and started > raving, I really thought Snape was gone. I thought he > was going insane and would be gone from the books. I > mean, I really thought sanity had just flown out the > window. > bboy_mn who is puzzled: "Snape showed up in the Whomping Willow..." Did you mean? "...showed up in the Shreiking Shack..." Or am I even more confused than I thought I was? Although I cut it out, you spoke about Sirius not showing any remorse, although you seemed to be relating it to current events in PoA. One thing that has puzzle me, is the prank where Sirius sent Snape to meet the werewolf!Lupin. He was a kid when he did that, teen boys can be very impulsive, and generally lacking in a lot of forethought. So, it's understandable that in the 'teen' moment, he would see this as a joke. Fortunately, James had a little more foresight, saw that this was a potentially deadly situation, and stopped it. But Sirius is an adult now, surely he must see that what he did as a teen was wrong, and that a deadly joke is no joking matter. I would think any person, no matter how proud or how much he may still dislike Snape, would have to see that this was wrong. I don't understand why he doesn't offer a simple apology like, 'Snape, I was a kid and did something stupid. Now I realize how wrong I was. Sorry.' He doesn't have to beg or grovel or anything else, just a simple 'I screwed up and I'm sorry'. Or even, 'Snape, I hate your oily guts, but I was wrong and I'm sorry'. Maybe things like this are such minor details that if the author dwelled on them all, the story would bog down under everyone hugging and saying they're sorry. But this one point has always bothered me. He has to see that he was wrong, how could he not? But he has given no indication that he even acknowledges his mistake. Just a few extra thoughts. bboy_mn From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 21:33:15 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:33:15 -0000 Subject: Spy/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47658 Bish:" Though not specifically stated in canon, it appears to me that the trials of the death eaters were not open to the public, and IIRC only the defendant accused of the crime being tried was present." I don't think that's settled. There's a substantial gallery at the trials/hearings we see: Bagman's, Karkaroff's, and Lestrange/Crouch Jr. They catcall, they comment, they talk amongst themselves, and we aren't told and it isn't clear that everyone there has a role besides spectator. With that many people, if the trial is supposed to be a secret, it won't be. Phyllis:The trial at which Dumbledore announces to the entire courtroom that Snape was a DE but turned spy for the good guys was Karkaroff's. In Ch. 30 of GoF, (p. 508 UK edition) it's noted that there "were at least two hundred" witches and wizards in attendance at Karkaroff's trial. It's not clear whether the trial was open to the public, but there were a lot of witches and wizards in attendance nonetheless. And some of them could have been Imperio'd former DEs for all we know." No doubt that, in the Muggle world, Snape would be considered 100% "blown," totally compromised, never to go into the field again. Maybe JKR never read John Le Carre. From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 21:32:36 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:32:36 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's Personality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47659 Since I first sat down to read the canon slightly over a year ago (I'm a fairly new fan) I've found Hagrid's character to be compelling. He seems to be operating on so many different levels, has so many layers and complexities, yet, like so much in the canon, appears to be so simple. I've been thinking (since the Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant Thread) about what makes him tick. It's easy to jump to simplistic conclusions, but I'm going to try to examine it the same way I would a real life person (avoiding meta-thinking ;o)) and attempt to develop a better understanding. I'd love to hear peoples opinions and I hope that this isn't a topic that's been done to death. 1. Hagrid's Life Before Hogwarts: Well, we don't know much about this. We know from GOF that his mother is the giantess Fridwulfa (Chapter 24), who left him and his father (described as a short wizard with Hagrid's crinkled black eyes) when Hagrid was about three. Hagrid seems to have had an excellent relationship with his father, who, he tells us, always told him to believe in himself, and seems to have been a tremendous support. He died in Hagrid's second year at Hogwarts. It would seem from Hagrid's speech patterns that he is from the North of England (but I'm open to correction on this), possibly near Scotland or maybe even on the border of Wales. This would also offer opportunity for his Mum and Dad to have met, as I assume that giants are found most commonly in mountainous regions. Hagrid bears no animosity towards his mother, describing her, again in GoF as being "not really the maternal sort." Whether this has left Hagrid with any emotional scars remains to be seen. He seems, however, to be well in touch with his feelings, having no problem with crying openly when he feels the need, carrying a pink umbrella for several years (probably concealing his wand), baking on a regular basis (rock buns, doughy biscuits, fruit cake) and knitting on the train). He also refers to himself as Norbert's "Mummy". In many ways, Hagrid takes on a mothering role, taking over the emotional care of Harry and co while they are at Hogwarts, and also fullfilling this role for the various monstrous creatures he adopts. Many commentators on parenting and childcare have commented on the role of gender in child-rearing. D W Winnicott in particular has stated that gender roles are not important. A father can fullfill the mothers role admirably is he is warm and nurturing enough, and can instill in the child a warm and caring persona. Has Hagrid's father done this? 2. Hagrid's Life at Hogwarts: Hagrid tells us that his father was "dead chuffed" when he was accepted to Hogwarts, worrying that he may be a squib due to his mixed parentage. It would seem that Hagrid's penchant for...unusual pets...found full flight once Hagrid was at the school. It has been suggested on this list that Hogwarts is probably a magnet for magical bugs, pests and vermin of all kinds, and Hagrid was also probably fascinated by the Forbidden Forest. It is easy to imagine Hagrid, as an eleven or twelve year old, exploring the eaves of the forest at first, and gradually venturing further and deeper as he begins to feel more comfortable with the environment, and gets to know the beasts and creatures that call it home. At Hogwarts, Hagrid tells us, Dumbledore "stuck up for him", particularly after the death of his father in his second year. Here we see an important transference of affection. Dumbledore becomes Hagrid's surrogate father (I've stated a similar point with regard to Snape on this site, and others have suggested it in relation to Harry). We see Hagrid, right from the Keeper of the Keys chapter in PS, defending Dumbledore's name and honour. He will not hear Dumbledore spoken ill of. He almost always follows any mention of him with the muttered phrase "Great man, Dumbledore." Dumbledore's loyalty to the young Hagrid is put to the test in Hagrid's third year when he is framed by the young LV (then Tom Riddle) for opening the CoS. Hagrid's unfortunate love of the grotesque had led him into serious trouble. Dumbledore, however, came through, and Hagrid is kept on as Gamekeeper, Groundskeeper and (his official title, it seems) Keeper of Keys. This is a position he seems to be admirably suited to, and we must admire Dumbledore for his sense and foresight. How this rejection, third great loss in Hagrid's life, has affected him is open to debate. He has been saved, partly, by Dumbledore, but he must remain an untrained, unqualified wizard. In many ways, an outcast. 3. Hagrid's Love of Hairy, Slimy, Fanged, Scaled, Many-Legged, Fire-Breathing Things: Hagrid seems to have an almost compulsive love of the monstrous. Throughout the canon we see examples of Hagrid's ill-advised affection for creatures that the rest of us (and , it would seem, the rest of the WW) would run away fairly quickly from. We meet Hagrid's illegally owned dragon, Norbert. We have to deal with Fluffy, the three-headed dog. We learn of Aragog, the giant spider that got Hagrid expelled (but who he brought a mate to, even after expulsion, which created a giant spider colony in the Forbidden Forest - any thoughts on the balance of the eco-system in the FF anyone?). We raise Blast-Ended Skrewts (Hagrid's idea of a fun bit of cross species breeding). We are left in absolutely no doubt that Hagrid is deeply committed to "interesting creatures". What possibly could be Hagrid's motivation for this? I suggest three specific things that may be an influence: (a) Hagrid's giant genes - We don't know much about giants except what we are told in the canon (that they are fearsome, violent and were in league with Voldemort). Could it be that all giants love things with claws and fangs? Is Hagrid just doing what he is biologically pre-disposed to do? (b) Hagrid's marginalisation - Hagrid must always have felt different. He is monstrous hinself (JKR refers to him as looking "too big to be allowed". Maybe Hagrid's love for the animals that everyone else hates is a projection of how he must feel. Very few people took the time to get to know and love *him*. It's probable that there were times in his life when other children ran away from him, maybe even times when he hurt people because he didn't know his own strength. Hagrid probably thought that, if only people would take the time to get to know him, they would see that he wasn't bad or evil. (c) Hagrid's size - Because of his size and strength, animals that look scary to the rest of us maybe don't look so terrifying to Hagrid. He could wrestle those enormous horses into their paddock without any problems in GoF, could man-handle the blast-ended skrewts without difficulty in the same book. Maybe giants are thicker skinned than humans, too. The fact that Hagrid appears to have *absolutely* no fear in relation to these animals also backs this point up. While others fear for life and limb when around some of Hagrid's more ferocious pets, Hagrid continues to think they are cute and cuddly. Hagrid is also guilty of what the experts refer to as *anthropomorphism*, which is the habit of putting human characteristics and behaviours onto animals. We see him tucking Norbert into his crate for his journey out of Hogwarts with his teddy bear...which Norbert promptly tears assunder.It seems unlikely that Norbert had would ever have any liking for a teddy bear other than as a potential snack. Similarly, Hagrid assumes that Aragog and family will welcome Harry and Ron to their forest home in CoS, because they are friends of his. The concept that these spiders are dangerous carnivores who would view the two boys as a handy snack never occurred to Hagrid. And this is part of his charm. It also makes him an ideal grounds-keeper. He genuinedly does have a love for the creature of the forest, in all their shapes and forms, and his loyalty to Dumbledore makes him fiercely reliable. 4. Hagrid's Responses to Stress: Hagrid responds to stress in a number if fairly predictable ways. -Alcohol: We regularly see Hagrid hitting the booze in the canon. The most obvious examples are in GoF when he is rejected by Madame Maxime, and again when Rita Skeeter publicises his giant ancestry. -Hiding: Hagrid, when under pressure or upset, hides away in his cabin, refusing to answer the door. Again, I refer to GoF. CoS is also an example. When he began to fear that he may be blamed a second time for the monster being loose, he retreated to the cabin with his cross-bow. -Aggression: Which brings me nicely to the next point. We don't actually ever see Hagrid get aggressive, but the *potential* for ferocious violence is very much there. We know how strong he is; he has giant blood in him; he is fearsomely built. He carries a cross-bow. The closest we ever get to seeing his nasty side is in PS, when he gives Dudley a tail (a fairly mild example) and in PoA, when he discusses his anger towards Sirius in the Three Broomsticks, and what he would have done to him if he had the chance ("I'd've ripped him limb-from-limb!) The fact that Hagrid is such a gentle soul leads me to ask two questions: Is he just a genuinely gentle person, slow to anger and only violent when protecting his friends or family (which I think is what the canon *really* suggests); or is he an individual who has repressed his violent side, allowing it only to find outlet through his love of dangerous and aggressive animals? Is it possible that Hagrid's regular outbursts of emotion, drunkenness and compulsive need to find affection through his pets is all a sign of someone who is desperately unhappy and is trying to fill a gap (the desetion of his mother) that can never really be filled? -Slips of the tongue: When under pressure, Hagrid leaks information like a dodgy penseive. In PS, HRH only have to question him for a few moments for him to crack. This is possibly another example of his trusting nature. He just doesn't expect that they are trying to trip him up! 5. Hagrid's Relationships with People: We see Hagrid's relationships with people operating on a number of different levels. (a) The teachers at Hogwarts: Hagrid seems to be still stuck in student mode in many ways in his relationships with the teachers. He sees them as being very wise, almost *infallible*. In PS, when HRH suggest that Snape is after the stone, Hagrid will hear none of it, giving as his main argument: "He's a Hogwarts teacher!" (Although, in PS Hagrid, after having imbibed far too much eggnog, kisses Professor McGonagall on the cheek during the Christmas Feast) As I have already mentioned, Hagrid treats Dumbledore with the greatest of love and respect. When Hagrid is given the Care of Magical Creatures teaching post, we see a slight change, but he still does not really treat them as equals. This seems to be down to his lack of self confidence. Being a teacher has long been a dream of Hagrid's, and he fears that he may not be up to the job. Hagrid does harbour romantic feelings toward Madame Maxime, the head of another school, in GoF, and does make an awkward attempt to woo her. As we have discussed, she rejects him when he tries to bring up the issue of her giant parentage (have any of you ever wondered about the logistics of Hagrid's Dad and his Mum getting intimate? I don't wonder he decided to wait for a more suitably proportioned girl-friend) In his relationships with teachers at the school, we mainly see Hagrid as a friendly, loyal, but slightly reserved person. (b) Filch: Hagrid does not appear to like Filch at all. When, in PS we see Filch bringing Hermione, Hermione, Neville and Draco out to Hagrid for their detention (and first visit to the FF), we hear Hagrid being really brusque to another non-Muggle for the first time, informing Filch that it isn't his place to lecture the children, and telling him to be off so that he can get going on the job at hand. Hagrid does not seem to have any confidence issues when with Filch. Could this be an example of Hagrid being class-conscious? Is he more comfortable with Filch because Filch is also servant class? (c) The children: Hagrid seems most at ease when with the HRH trio. As we can see from the canon, Hagrid takes Harry under his wing straight away. This may be for a number of reasons: a special bond because he was the one to pull Harry from the rubble of the house at Godric's Hollow; the fact that Harry is an orphan; Harry's special status in the WW makes him an outsider too; he feels protective about Harry because he feels guilty that he only arrived on the scene of the James and Lilly murder after the fact - too late. In the movies (and I won't mention them again - promise ;o)) the relationship between Hagrid and Harry is played up, with Harry being much more openly physically affectionate to Hagrid, and openly seeing him as a father type figure. We don't see this in the books, although a close bond does obviously exist. Hagrid is also close to Hermione and Ron, and we see this affection being reciprocated - Hermione goes out of her way to help Hagrid with his court case in defence of Buckbeak in PoA for example. Hagrid seems to see the children as individuals who can more understand where he is coming from. He discusses his problems and thoughts and feelings with them in a startlingly frank way, and they also come to him with theirs - who does Hermione turn to in PoA when herself and Ron are fighting? Hagrid. It is in his relationships with the children that Hagrid is at his most appealing. He asks for nothing, but gives openly and unconditionally. (d) Drinking buddies: We hear of these from time to time, mostly in terms of new animal purchases or wins (Fluffy and Norbert). They appear to be shady (well, one was LV!) and Hagrid, in typical fashion, assumes that they mean well. One wonders is he really that naiive, or is he aware that he is associating with a rather unscrupulous lot? Maybe he does know, but doesn't care? The criminal classes are, after all, marginalised in their own way, and often created by the class system. We can, if we choose to, interpret this as another example of Hagrid being drawn to those aspects of life that others are afraid of are despise. Conclusions. Hagrid is a beautifully crafted character, with real human traits. Like many of JKR's characters, he is flawed, which makes him so much more believable. In summary, here are my main thoughts: -Hagrid has had many traumas and losses in his life: his mother's abandonment, his father's death, his expulsion from Hogwarts, the death of Lilly and James and his guilt about it, his imprisonment in Azkaban, his rejection by Madame Maxime. Of these, the loss of his mother and father are obviously the most important and scarring experiences, especially when we note that his mother abandoned him at a formative and critical stage, and his father died during Hagrid's adolescence. -Hagrid's loyalty and affection for Dumbledore can be seen as a transference of paternal affection. Dumbledore stepped in and took the father role, at a time when Hagrid was feeling deeply alone and further rejected. Hagrid is deeply grateful for this. -Hagrid has spent his life trying to fill the gap that this loss has made. He does this through alcohol and through his pets. -Hagrid has the potential for violence, but seems to have repressed it. He is very emotional, but tends to use coping strategies, possibly taught by his father to deal with stress and pain. -Hagrid has low confidence and self-esteem. This may stem from his being an outsider and an unqualified wizard. We see this reflected in his relationships with adults. -Hagrid's nature is a polarised one. He has many traits that seem to be giant, however he has been seperated from this culture all his life. Many of his giant characteristics seem to be unconscious ones. He is living in the WW with other wizards, and he has been socialised and conditioned to be a wizard. Well, those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear other people's ideas. Shane. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From alicit at aol.com Tue Dec 3 22:05:13 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:05:13 EST Subject: Weasley ages... Message-ID: <132.17f6421f.2b1e8499@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47660 I know that this has been discussed, at length, before. But I really need closure on this! First off, I was under the impression, throughout the books, that Charlie was older than Bill. Then, I get into the fandom, and everyone is agreed that Bill is older. So, you know what I ask now.... Where's the canon? does it even say in the books that Bill is the oldest? Secondly: I was trying to make a timeline to figure out the ages of all the Weasleys in the past. I used the age differences for Charlie, Percy, Ron, and the Twins based on the statements that gryffendor hadn't won the quidditch cup for 7 years in PS, and that they hadn't won the cup since Charlie was seeker ( I think that was in PoA? no? yes?) I also remembered that Ginny says (in CoS, I'm pretty sure) that she remembers Bill being at Hogwarts... so when I made up this timeline, I noticed something. Around 1967? ? Bill is born (I am assuming that he is at least one year older than Charlie... for these purposes) 1968-Charlie is born Bill: 1? 1976 ? Percy is born Bill: 9? Charlie: 8 1978?- Bill, 11, starts at HW? Charlie: 10? Percy: 2? F&G: about to be born?/born? 1979 ? Charlie, 11, starts at HW Bill: 2nd year at HW? Percy: 3 F&G: 1 March, 1980: Ron born Bill: 3rd year at HW? Charlie: 12, 2nd year at HW Percy: 4 F&G: 2 1981: Ginny born Bill: 4th year at HW? Charlie: 13, 3rd year at HW Percy: 5 F&G: 3 Ron: 1 1982 Bill: 5th year HW? Charlie:14, 4th year at HW Percy: 6 F&G: 4 Ron: 2 Ginny: 1 1983: Bill: 6th year HW? Charlie: 15, 5th year at HW Percy: 7 F&G: 5 Ron: 3 Ginny: 2 1984 Bill: Graduates HW? Charlie:16, 6th year at HW Percy: 8 F&G: 6 Ron: 4 Ginny: 3 1985 Bill: 18? Charlie:17, graduates HW Percy: 9 F&G: 7 Ron: 5 Ginny: 4 Issue? look at the second to last one. Children usually cannot remember much that happened to them before the age of 5, maybe 4 if they have very good memories (my psych class kicking in again). Ginny is only 3 when Bill is last at Hogwarts, and she wouldn't remember it. However... if Bill is younger than Charlie, all their assertations would make sense, including Bill's comment on not seeing Hogwarts for 5 years. Ginny wouldn't have remembered Charlie's being at Hogwarts, because she was only 4. This also fills in the puzzling Weasley age gap. Anyway, someone, please just show me where it says that Bill is oldest, and i will shut up. -Scheherazade, who has not forgotten the test/mirror debate, but is constructing a carefully researched TBAY post for it ! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Dec 3 22:13:54 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:13:54 -0000 Subject: Spy/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47661 Welcome to the list, Bish. I completely agree with the first two points of your post: 1) that it remains extremely unclear who "knows" that Snape was a double agent based on Karkaroff's plea bargain hearing (and who even believes it) and 2) that Snape acts so cagey with Quirrell that he could indeed plead that he didn't know that LV was behind him. Naturally this issues has been discussed before; if anyone would like to read a consolidation of past discussions, I eagerly recommend our Fantastic Posts page of Snape: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/snape.html and particularly: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/snape.html#voldy However, Bish did bring up one thing I'd like to clear up: > I've also seen the opinion that Quirrell knew that Snape was the > one who was counter cursing Harry's broom. I don't remember > this > from canon. Quirrell states this himself to Harry when they confront each other at the end of PS/SS: "But Snape tried to kill me!" "No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have managed it before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse, trying to save you." He goes on to remark about how Snape was also trying to protect Harry by refereeing the next Quidditch match. Ah, but the question is how did he know that? Bish remarks: > In fact I don't think he could have possibly known, > simply because the curse he was using required that his eyes be on > the broom constantly, which not allow him to look around to see who > might be doing the counter curse. When Snape got the hotfoot, both > had their had their concentration broken, so he couldn't have > known. It's possible he might not have known at the moment it happened. But I think that he did know by process of elimination: namely, I think Snape was the only one present with the Dark Arts knowledge and skill to foil Quirrell's broom-bucking jinx. Whether or not Snape is really envious of the DADA position, it seems common knowledge that he knows a great deal about the subject and I'm sure Quirrell of all people would be aware of who his possible rival in the field was. Plus, Quirrell might have known Snape himself from their school days (and thus know his interests and abilities fairly well) -- he certainly is aware of Snape's hatred of James, which was a schoolboy thing. Also, I always assumed Snape actually told Quirrell himself that he caught him trying to jinx Harry's broom. When Snape corners Quirrell in the forbidden forest he mentions "-- your little bit of hocus- pocus." I always interpreted that he meant the broom-bucking jinx by "hocus-pocus;" that he, being Snape, was belittling Quirrell's ineffectual attempt at dark magic. It's very much in Snape's character to flummox an opponent by confronting him with evidence against him, and I always assumed he couldn't resist the same with Quirrell. ~Porphyria From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Dec 3 22:38:25 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:38:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47662 In a message dated 03/12/2002 18:53:48 GMT Standard Time, greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes: > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, who won't bother with the rest of the post - the viewpoints > are simply too different and he know no easy way of explaining his > point of view to Eloise > I agree that our viewpoints are very different, but I confess that I am disappointed that you simply 'won't bother' with the rest of a post that took considerable time, effort, and thought, even to explain points which I specifically asked you to amplify because I simply couldn't understand what they meant. The bottom line seems to be that not only are our viewpoints different, but more importantly, we're not speaking the same language. Or at least, we define fundamental concepts in different ways and use fundamental words to mean different things. That was one of the things I was hoping to clarify in my original post, so to that end I have succeeded, at least. Oh, and the onion ring thing...... Well, apart from the fact that onions make me cry...;-) I naturally agree that there are a group of texts carrying some authority and that these may be placed into some sort of a hierarchy. These texts are of course very useful in shedding light on our interpretations and theorising and we metathinking miscreants of course *do* use them. But I would still not define them as *canon*. I would personally say that they have the same weight as the Apocrypha does to Anglicans and Lutherans in relation to the canon of Scripture (useful for instruction but not for the establishment of doctrine). Eloise Thinking that the words 'hurt' or 'insulted' should really figure in this post somewhere, but only being able to summon up a vague annoyance since she supposes that Grey Wolf didn't realise quite how his words would come across. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 21:44:08 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:44:08 -0000 Subject: Parvati and Ron/Trelawney In-Reply-To: <3a.306b503b.2b1e56cd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47663 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., jodel at a... wrote: > Actually, it's a bit amusing how many of these "phoney" predictions come out > right on the money. Trelawney has got to have at least *some* degree of a > gift. That prediction to Lavendar DID turn out -- on exactly the day she said > it was going to. And Sybil can't have had any kind of inside knowledge about > it. The problem was that once Lavendar got her bad news from home, no one > worked the prediction backwards to the correct interpretation. No, not even > Hermione. As Hermione pointed out, the pet had been killed on a different > day, and Lavendar only *heard* about it on the day Trelawney predicted. > Lavendar is convinced that Trelawney predicted that her rabbit would be > killed. But she didn't. She said that the thing she most dreaded would happen > on a given day. Clearly what Lavendar most dreaded was getting bad news from > home. Which happened. *Exactly* as Trelawney said it would. An ambigous "something bad will happen to you on this day" (which, essentially is all 'the thing you dread will come to pass' means) isn't really an exact and accurate or very specific prediction for Lavender. I think the idea behind Trelawney's prediction is very simple- chances are, something a bit bad or sad will happen on *any* given day. She puts the date of the so-called "thing that you're dreading" well enough into the future so that Lavender might ponder it for a while, then forget about it. Then, when the day rolls around, and something awful occurs, Lavender automatically remembers the prediction and calls it divination, whereas, if Lavender had a perfectly happy contented day, she wouldn't have remembered the prediction at all. The idea is, if I predict you will be kicked by a horse 1000 times, and one out of those 1000 times you actually do, you will remember the one time I predicted it correctly, and say I'm psychic, and you will have forgotten about the other 999 times altogether. This, IMO, is why Trelawney makes so many predictions during the first class- so that at least one of them might come true, and she can then direct focus to that one and brush away the rest. Most of the "predictions" are really just inferences from people's personalities- that is, Lavender is obviously superstitious, so will believe what Trelawney says, Neville is obviously unco-ordinated. In fact, at the very start of the lesson, Trelawney asks Neville if he's Grandmother is well- to get him paranoid, then, the next time she predicts something his way he'd again feel shaky- no wonder he breaks the tea-cup! In a way, Trelawney actually provoked him to break the cup, by making his worry about things elsewhere. Trewlawney predict's Harry's death so frequently he just gets bored and yawns at her. Obviously Harry hasn't died even once- Trelawney was just aware that Harry was getting up to dangerous and life threatening activities (fighting Dragons etc) and that he had a good chance of dying. If he had, surely Trelanwey would be procclaiming the Inner- Eye, and when he didn't, she just moves forward and does it next time it's likely. I could predict that I will knock something over every morning, and sure enough, by each evening I'm sure I will have- only because I'm an extreme klutz, not because I'm psychic. I think Trelawney is just very good at observing student's personalities- she could have evne been spying on then whilst they waited for the ladder to drop down from the trapdoor on the first Divination lesson to get a better idea of the personality types. She predicts flu will disrupt the class in February. February? You mean winter??? Yes, very omniscient. And also, because we've never been included in Lavender's thoughts, we don't really know what it is she dreads most- but as Hermione pointed out, if she was dreading it, it wouldn't have come as a shock at all. If she was really waiting around until the sixteenth of October awaiting what she was dreading, she wouldn't have been shocked. In fact, I'd wager that what Lavender dreads most is a prediction from Trelawney apparently coming true- she trembles at the very thought when Trelawney puts it to her. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From glovvgirl at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 22:33:36 2002 From: glovvgirl at yahoo.com (glovvgirl) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:33:36 -0000 Subject: Weasley ages... In-Reply-To: <132.17f6421f.2b1e8499@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47664 > Issue? look at the second to last one. Children usually cannot remember > much that happened to them before the age of 5, maybe 4 if they have very > good memories (my psych class kicking in again). Actually, infantile amnesia (the name for this phenomenon) tends to kick in around 3, not 5 (with huge individual differences--for various references, try typing "infantile amnesia" into Google). Thus, Ginny could very well remember Bill being at Hogwarts, especially since I would think his coming and going would be highly salient events. -Jenea From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 22:44:28 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:44:28 -0000 Subject: Vapormort and the necessity of the flawed potion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47665 Okay. IIRC, One of the points made by MD was that Voldemort needed to be brought back because in his earlier form as "less than spirit" he was indestructable. Now, aside from the fact that I haven't seen this claim proven one way or the other, the fact is that he was returned to a physical form before the confrontation with Harry at the end of GoF. Was this taken into consideration, and I just haven't found the right post yet? Or ... ? CK clicketykeys From sgarfio at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 23:19:24 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:19:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potterverse Racism, & technology (Was: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021203231924.30953.qmail@web21407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47666 Okay, I'm never going to catch up, so I'll go ahead and accept Chthonia's challenge: Chthonia wrote: > I'm intrigued that no-one has taken up the last point I was > trying to > make: Given that a major theme in the books is that racism and > prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted > by > the ways character traits seem to run in families in the > Potterverse? Although one might expect there to be family cultures > which would make sibling/offspring entry into the same school House > more likely, even at eleven years old I'd expect individual > traumas, > sibling rivalries etc to have produced differing motivational > drives. (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) But it > seems that bloodlines do indeed have a significance? Yes, this has always bothered me, too. "Another Weasley - I know *just* what to do with you - Gryffindor!" (Is this movie tainting, or did the Sorting Hat really say that about Ron?) Anyway, 7 children in one family (and their parents, I believe?) all in Gryffindor, and generations of Malfoys in Slytherin (this may be over-generalizing on Draco's part - I don't think he would tell a kid he just met that "all of my family have been in Slytherin, except Uncle Ralph and Cousin Larry, but they're weird"). This does sound like bloodlines have significance. Of course, the Weasley kids have all been brought up by the same parents and may have gleaned the same basic values from them, but I who only have 2 children know how different kids are by nature. I like your idea about Percy belonging in Slytherin. He doesn't stick up for himself much (Weatherby), which I would expect a Gryffindor to do, and he is certainly ambitious. Chthonia continued: > And why is it worse for Draco to call Hermione a Mudblood (CoS pg 86- > 89, and elsewhere) than it is for Hagrid to say that the Malfoy's > have `bad blood' (CoS pg 51)? I wonder if JKR is allowing us > to > accept all the anti-Slytherin comments only to turn our own > assumptions against us later on... My take on this: JKR is pointing out that prejudice shows up in the most unexpected places, and that it can be harmful even when it appears to be harmless. Here, Hagrid is perpetuating the Trio's assumptions about the Malfoys. This is another example of prejudice: one that the Trio (and probably the readers) share, so it's not challenged the way Draco's "Mudblood" is. It's said in a private conversation among like-minded people, which is how prejudices in real life often fester and get built up and justified. For this reason, I suspect that Draco will indeed surprise us in later books (perhaps other Slytherins, as you say, but I suspect Draco in particular). Somebody else (sorry, deleted the post) brought up the possibility of a showdown between Lucius and Snape in which Draco would have to choose between them, and would probably choose Snape (and thus Dumbledore over Voldemort). Another possibility is that Draco will be put in a position to help the Trio, but they won't take his help because their prejudices about him lead them to mistrust him. Much like the way Harry's mistrust of authority figures (due to his treatment by the Dursleys) usually causes him a lot of trouble. I'm a big advocate of the idea that HP demonstrates morality by *counter-example* much more than by example. The Trio are not infallible, perfect little role models, like some anti-HP people want them to be if they're in a children's series; they make mistakes, suffer the consequences, and learn and grow from their mistakes. I believe that this is why some of the good guys also show prejudice in the series - good guys make mistakes too. This is prejudice in its more subtle form, and it's important to be able to recognize it. My two knuts. - Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sgarfio at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 23:50:18 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:50:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) In-Reply-To: <1bf.1636a375.2b1c2bfe@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021203235018.37531.qmail@web21407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47667 With only 99 posts left to read... Scheherezade said > > > >Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only > > >enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough > > >to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd > > >need... Melody replied: > > > That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either > > Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next > > room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people in > > that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) Scheherezade countered: > yes, but, if there was originally two doses of the potion in the bottle, > wouldn't Hermione or Harry notice that there was less in that one bottle? > meaning that someone had already drunk it? > > -Scheherazade, knows that there is *something* wrong with that potions > sequence, but can't quite put her finger on it Possible explanations: - If the various bottles were different enough in shape, the fact that one of them had half as much potion as the others would have been less apparent. - Each bottle had a different amount of potion in it to begin with - some only had one dose, some had several, so the "right" bottle may not have been the only one with one dose left. - JKR wanted to showcase Hermione's powers of deduction, and therefore glossed over this little detail. (I really wish she had included all of the clues in the text; I wanted to play along at home!) I do think it's significant (as Melody implied) that the "right" bottle had 2 doses to begin with. Perhaps it was originally planned as a way for Dumbledore to follow the intruder (how *did* Dumbledore get in there, anyway? Did he have his own hip-flask?). Or it was planned for Harry all along, and having 2 doses ensured that Harry would be alone with the intruder (refer to numerous other posts for theories on why that may have been important). - Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 22:06:00 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:06:00 -0000 Subject: LV's pupil complex? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47668 I was thinking about the relationship between Tom Riddle and Dumbledore, back when he was a student, and I was wondering if that did not affect his actions towards Dumbledore later in his life as LV. If we assume Riddle to have a similar relationship to Dumbledore as Harry does, he must be somewhat in awe of Dumbledore as a wizard. When I recently went back to my primary school, I was amazed to discover that my headteacher, a fire-breathing woman, had shrunk. Obviously, I had grown. Could LV's reluctance to challenge Dumbledore spring from a similar source? We do not know how Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald. He might have succeeded by luck or by being prepared to use the AK curse. This awe of being the person to defeat the last serious menace to the WW must be still with Dumbledore. Now, we have no episodes in canon of a direct clash between Voldemort and Dumbledore (and if anyone knows of any fanfics that do, please point them out), but we do know of intellectual clashes, and Dumbledore has come off worse. In PS, LV got into the castle and nearly took the stone. Dumbledore was saved by luck. I don't think that either COS and POA count as clashes, but in GOF, Dumbledore's prot?g?, Harry, is effectively kidnapped, barely escapes death and escapes without help from Dumbledore. At this point, a less conceited man than LV might just decide that Dumbledore is over rated. His experiences as a child have shaped his overblown assessment of Dumbledore's strength. That bodes ill for Dumbledore Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nyndwarrego at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 23:02:18 2002 From: nyndwarrego at hotmail.com (nyndwarrego) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 23:02:18 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47669 Monika - BRAVO! The expression of PTSD fluctuates, and onset can be many years after the original trauma. I would agree that it is an often over-used diagnosis, but no less real for that. I see it often in police or emergency workers - they appear to deal well enough with events at the time, but it catches up with them months or even years later. Sirius, PTSD. I'll buy it. W From rachelday at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Dec 3 23:07:31 2002 From: rachelday at blueyonder.co.uk (rachel day) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:07:31 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's Personality References: Message-ID: <004101c29b20$c2f6ad00$8d181f3e@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47670 Shane Wrote: >>It would seem from Hagrid's speech patterns that he is from the North of England (but I'm open to correction on this), possibly near Scotland or maybe even on the border of Wales. This would also offer opportunity for his Mum and Dad to have met, as I assume that giants are found most commonly in mountainous regions. << Being from the North of England myself (Yorkshire) I have to say that Hagrid's accent is definitely not northern (any doubts I might have had were put right by TMTMNBN.) I always thought that Hagrid's dialect was more Cornish (the south-west tip of England), though if there are any locals around and I'm wrong please feel free to flame me *ducks down*. :-) I think the reason why people might think Hagrid was northern is because the southern counties tend to speak more the 'Queen's English' (it sounds dead posh - compared to us yokels anyway ;-) ). The northern accent tends to be (in my experience) coarser, with more slang used. 'H' s aren't pronounced at the beginning of words, nor are 'T' s at the end for example. We're pretty much lazy talkers, to put it bluntly. ;-) I do agree that it sounds more fitting that the Giants would be found up in Scottish Highlands than the Cornish countryside. I can't really see them walking down to the local supermarket. They seem more of recluses to me, hidden away in the mountains. Shane also wrote; >>...Blast-Ended Skrewts (Hagrid's idea of a fun bit of cross species breeding).<< I've always been curious just what Blast-Ended Skrewts are a cross OF, especially since I searched unsuccessfully in FB for them. Any ideas anyone? On why Hagrid is so fond of "interestin' creatures" >>Maybe Hagrid's love for the animals that everyone else hates is a projection of how he must feel. Very few people took the time to get to know and love *him*. It's probable that there were times in his life when other children ran away from him, maybe even times when he hurt people because he didn't know his own strength. Hagrid probably thought that, if only people would take the time to get to know him, they would see that he wasn't bad or evil.<< I think this is brilliant theory. He has empathy for these creatures because they reflect how he must have felt. isolated and misunderstood. Despite Hagrid's intimidating stature we know he wouldn't hurt a fly. He is indeed a gentle giant. (although recent 'Flesh Eating Slug Repellent Posts' may cast doubt on this). This is all coming back to the underlying theme of prejudice within the books. >>(have any of you ever wondered about the logistics of Hagrid's Dad and his Mum getting intimate? I don't wonder he decided to wait for a more suitably proportioned girl-friend)<< Oh I've wondered! (though I'm really not as sick and twisted as I sound - honest!) the logistics blow my mind! Though I suppose kids (with their innocent young minds ;-) ) wouldn't think about such things. Also, has anyone ever wondered where Hagrid *lived* after his expulsion from Hogwarts, with one absent parent and one dead. Especially as there has been speculation whether he took the Groundskeeper job straight away. Did he have other relatives he could stay with? If so why haven't we heard of them? And will we hear from them in future books? regards, Rachel From kethlenda at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 23:35:02 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 23:35:02 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman: missing DE? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021202215950.034c4cb0@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47671 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Carol Bainbridge wrote: I had assumed that it was Barty Jr. who put Harry's name in the goblet, but > I can't find where he actually admits he did it. I do believe that Barty Jr admits to putting Harry's name in the Goblet--it's right after Harry comes back from the graveyard, I think, and Barty/FakeMoody takes him aside into his office. However, I think you've convinced me that Bagman is a DE. You're right, he *was* the one who could have looked for Bertha Jorkins but didn't. And he probably *was* the one who thought of bringing the tournament back. Whether he was the "most faithful" DE or not, it does begin to look like he was one, and got off because everybody was impressed with his athletic prowess. (Parallels in the Muggle world, anyone?) Strix From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 00:36:26 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 00:36:26 -0000 Subject: Vapormort and the necessity of the flawed potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47672 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "clicketykeys" wrote: > Okay. IIRC, One of the points made by MD was that Voldemort needed to > be brought back because in his earlier form as "less than spirit" he > was indestructable. Now, aside from the fact that I haven't seen this > claim proven one way or the other, the fact is that he was returned to > a physical form before the confrontation with Harry at the end of GoF. > > Was this taken into consideration, and I just haven't found the right > post yet? Or ... ? > > CK > clicketykeys It is true that Voldemort took on that small, weak body (the "ugly baby" one) during most of GoF. It is not explicitly stated in the text, but the implication is that this was a "stepping stone" body to allow him to return to England and carry out his plan of true recorporation in the graveyard. Before Wormatail returned to him, Voldemort was existing in Albania by possessing bodies of animals. Once Wormatail joined him, Voldemort had a wizard who could obey orders and use a wand for him. He used information extracted from Bertha Jorkins to hatch a plan to go to England and have Wormtail brew a potion which included his father's bone and Harry's blood in order to get himself back into a fully functional mortal body. Note that the "ugly baby" body he had before this was extremely weak and had to be nursed by something containing Nagini's venom (or was it venom alone?), once every few hours. He could not even milk Nagini for himself; Wormtail had to do it. The assumption I think it safe to make is that the "ugly baby" body was only taken on by Voldemort when he was ready to set his recorporation plan in motion. It was merely to enable him to travel to England with Wormtail (and was just barely adequate for this). It was never intended by Voldemort that he would stay in this body, and thus not something that Dumbledore could take advantage of, as he didn't really know what exactly he was or where. Remember that Harry never told Sirius or Dumbledore about the actual dream he had in the summer before his fourth year, only that his scar hurt. When Harry did tell Dumbledore about his other dream in Divination class, it was late in the school year. Harry did not actually see Voldemort, only that he could hold a wand (implying a body). He did not give Dumbledore any information as to where Voldemort might be. Thus, Dumbledore did not have time to locate Voldemort before the Third Task of the tournament. Anne From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 4 00:51:30 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:51:30 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe? References: Message-ID: <006701c29b2f$497ea540$31cb7ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47673 > bboy_mn comments: > > But you are right we never hear about bathrooms and showers. Harry and > the Weasley brothers are out side having an hours long snowball fight > before the Yule Ball. But, when it starts to get dark, do they go take > a shower and get dressed? No, they just go get dressed. They get up in > the morning and get dress; not showered and dress. Samething at night, > straight from clothes to pajamas; not clothes, shower, pajamas. > Not to be sexist or something, but they are boys. Many years ago I worked in a summer camp with 11-12 years old kids. The girls asked for shower keys twice a day, the boys probably didn't know where it is after 4 weeks in the camp. I do remember showers mentioned in CoS - after the Mandrakes lesson. Irene From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 01:19:40 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:19:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204011940.14115.qmail@web20009.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47674 --- Steve wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rebecca Stephens > wrote: > > > >REBECCA: > > ps I'd just like to say (though it has nothin to > do > > with the discussion) that when I initally read PoA > and > > Snape showed up in the Whomping Willow and started > > raving, I really thought Snape was gone. I > thought he > > was going insane and would be gone from the books. > I > > mean, I really thought sanity had just flown out > the > > window. > > > > bboy_mn who is puzzled: > > "Snape showed up in the Whomping Willow..." > > Did you mean? "...showed up in the Shreiking > Shack..." You are correct; I get in a hurry and mess up typing quite often. I don't have the discipline to proofo-read that I ought. I will attempt to improve. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Dec 4 01:45:12 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:45:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47675 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" wrote: > But Sirius is an adult now, surely he must see that what he did as a > teen was wrong, and that a deadly joke is no joking matter. I would > think any person, no matter how proud or how much he may still dislike > Snape, would have to see that this was wrong. I don't understand why > he doesn't offer a simple apology like, 'Snape, I was a kid and did > something stupid. Now I realize how wrong I was. Sorry.' > Well, Sirius has only had two interactions with Snape so far in the books -- the Shrieking Shack encounter, and that one forced handshake at the end of GoF. Both times, Sirius had other things on his mind, so I can see why he hasn't apologized yet. I do hope he'll admmit he was wrong at some point in the future, not only out of fairness to Snape (though I'm all for that) or for his own growth and edification (though I'm all for that, too), but for Harry's growth and edification (which, after all, is the main point of the books, isn't it?) By the end of GoF, Harry has finally begun to absorb the idea that adults he hates may not necessarily be evil. He still hasn't really picked up the notion that adults he admires may have serious character flaws. I think seeing Sirius admit he has wronged Snape would be good for Harry. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 01:48:35 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:48:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror and Obstacles (why Harry...stone?) References: <20021203235018.37531.qmail@web21407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004301c29b37$42a659e0$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47676 > With only 99 posts left to read... > > Scheherezade said > > > > > >Which brings me to a Flint-like inconsistency... if there was only > > > >enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel and Harry had enough > > > >to drink? Unless Quirrel planned ahead and knew what potion he'd > > > >need... > > Melody replied: > > > > > That is not a Flint. Harry said there was only enough for either > > > Hermione or himself. This is after Quirrell is already in the next > > > room, so it stands to reason that there was enough for two people in > > > that rounded bottle. Now I ask you why is that so convenient? :) > > Scheherezade countered: > > yes, but, if there was originally two doses of the potion in the bottle, > > wouldn't Hermione or Harry notice that there was less in that one bottle? > > meaning that someone had already drunk it? > > > > -Scheherazade, knows that there is *something* wrong with that potions > > sequence, but can't quite put her finger on it > > Sherry's Possible explanations: > > - If the various bottles were different enough in shape, the fact that one of > them had half as much potion as the others would have been less apparent. > > - Each bottle had a different amount of potion in it to begin with - some only > had one dose, some had several, so the "right" bottle may not have been the > only one with one dose left. > > - JKR wanted to showcase Hermione's powers of deduction, and therefore glossed > over this little detail. (I really wish she had included all of the clues in > the text; I wanted to play along at home!) > > I do think it's significant (as Melody implied) that the "right" bottle had 2 > doses to begin with. Perhaps it was originally planned as a way for Dumbledore > to follow the intruder (how *did* Dumbledore get in there, anyway? Did he have > his own hip-flask?). Or it was planned for Harry all along, and having 2 doses > ensured that Harry would be alone with the intruder (refer to numerous other > posts for theories on why that may have been important). > Now me: Maybe none of the bottles were filled to capacity so no assumptions could be made based on how much remained in the bottles. If they did refill automatically like the chess board reset maybe it was always only supposed to contain enough for one. What I want to know is if one bottle was to get through the Black flames and another was to get through the Purple then why if Quirrel was just in the other room were the flames was not still going when Harry and Hermione got to that room? This leads me to believe that Quirrel did not solve this puzzle but did something else to put out the flames. Rob From Malady579 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 01:56:20 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:56:20 -0000 Subject: Vapormort and the necessity of the flawed potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47677 CK wrote: >>Okay. IIRC, One of the points made by MD was that Voldemort needed >>to be brought back because in his earlier form as "less than spirit" >>he was indestructable. Now, aside from the fact that I haven't seen >>this claim proven one way or the other, the fact is that he was >>returned to a physical form before the confrontation with Harry at >>the end of GoF. Well, since Grey and Pip are in bed now, I'll answer. :) The reason many, or at least I, say Voldemort is immortal as spirit form is that Dumbledore knew where Vapourmort was. He said so in CoS Ch 18. So it seems to reason that the man that was so involved in the first round of Voldie wars to end this evil would therefore act on this information and comb the land of Albania cocked, locked, and ready to kill (or yes, capture, but it ruins the 'old west' imagery). And since he knew where Voldie was, it seems Dumbledore would of found him. But we see no evidence of this. Dumbledore does not talk of "close encounters". Though at this time, would Dumbledore tell Harry of such encounters? So, that is a little shakey to place my faith...but I have placed my faith on more precarious ventures. ;) Now you might ask, why Voldemort once he left Quirrell ran, well glided, back to Albania if he is not able to be killed, injured, captured...whatever? It was suggested, and I think wisely, that when one is away for a while, the WW becomes complacent. And when is the best time to make plans to overthrow the world than when all is thought to be well. If Vapourmort is spotted renting a room at the Leaky Cauldron, he would not get a moment's peace. MoM always buzzing around trying to trick him into getting in the smoking cauldron. Not a happy way for this evil overlord to scheme and make his dreams come true. Now you next point of question is why Dumbledore did not pursue EvilBabyVoldemort. Hmm, fair enough. I for one think the reason Voldie even messed around with making a semi-proper human form to move around in is for convenience, portability, and just to have a human-esque body again. I mean he has been wanting one of his own for how long...13 years? I do also want to say I agree with Anne in her read of the reasons Voldemort had the body made but want to add... Seems, he did not bother with it with Quirrell because he thought the stone would be in his grasp soon, so why bother with the ugly baby potion. But, by the time Peter came around, Voldemort wanted to have human features again like hands. If he imposed himself on Peter, then Peter would eventually have to die like Quirrell. Voldemort had bigger plans and needed Peter non-inhabited. Plus also, in GoF Ch 33, Voldie said the body was just a type of vehicle for him. Just a body, not his own. He said, "I would be able to inhabit [ugly baby] while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth..." So it seems, it could be read that Voldie could inhabit the body and then de-inhabit (sorry not sure of the technical term) the body. So meaning, he could not be killed as a baby since he was still a VapourMort just inhabiting at the moment. I mean if there was a chance Voldemort could be killed that easily (i.e. drown in the cauldron), then I do not think Voldemort is that stupid to create such a precarious situation for himself. He is too smart for that. He's good at being an evil overlord. Yes, I am in a very forgiving mood about Voldie tonight. Poor evil overlord can't get a break. [Oh, and this opinion is not influenced at all by any websites I have read recently. ;)] Melody From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 01:29:51 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:29:51 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods and Nukes/[& muggle awareness] In-Reply-To: <009c01c29a91$1ea8a760$60739d40@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47678 rinceceol wrote: >I'm so glad to finally see someone else draw the comparison between >the words "mudblood" and "nigger." To me, it was always obvious how >derogatory they were trying to make that word seem, but I've read so >much fanfiction that uses the word "mudblood" as a neutral >description for a muggle-born witch/wizard, that I've wanted to >scream. Agreed. I wonder though, how aware the pure-blood lot are of the magnititude of the impact of the term? Draco obviously *is* using it as an insult, but there might be many families that use it casually amoung themselves, either because they actively hate erm, half- bloods? [what is the politically correct term here?], or because they are unconscious racists. In these cases their offspring may not realise how vile a term it is until they meet someone who gets upset by it... rinceceol also wrote: >we've not really seen any evidence that even the most intelligent of >Wizards has any useful knowledge of the Muggle world. Look at Arthur >Weasley! He's head of the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office, and he >doesn't seem to have a clue, honestly. Astonishing, really, when >you think about the number of muggle-born wizards and witches there >are out there. Yes, this is something that has always astonished me as well. Who's teaching their Muggle studies classes, anyhow? Surely there were Muggle-born students around when Arthur was at school - if he had that fascination then surely he would have managed to find a Muggle family to visit over the holidays? Don't they have field trips? Does WW security paranoia mean that no-one is *allowed* to go into the Muggle world, that it is discouraged subtly or otherwise? (The Weasleys could get round that by their Ministry connections) Or have wizards evolved in such a way that they are incapable of understanding technology (but then the wizard-Muggle breeding should sort that one out). Or...? Chthonia From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 01:35:44 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:35:44 -0000 Subject: Lucius and Draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47679 Polaris wrote: > I am struck by how little magic Draco knows when > he enters Hogwarts [snip] One might think that all > these years Lucius might have been instructing > his son on the finer points of dark magic Maybe Draco wasn't really all that interested in the Dark Arts. (He was only eleven at that point, after all. Most people go through the gloomy angst-ridden phase that might lead to a fascination with the Dark somewhat later than that.) Maybe he was more interested in flying and Quidditch. Maybe that's partly why Lucius is a little disappointed in him... David wrote (in response to Heidi doubting Lucius cares for Draco): > Given wizarding longevity and conservatism, this > scene [Borgin & Burkes] could just reflect what > would have been seen in the muggle world as normal > and even correct a hundred or so years ago. I agree (see Alice Miller's excellent book "For your own good: the roots of violence in childrearing" for more on this). And sadly, in some ways the B&B scene is still normal - I see far too much such treatment of (usually younger) children in shops on a daily basis. However, I think there's a bit more to it than that. Rampant speculation begins! Bear in mind that at the time of Draco's birth Lucius would have been very busy working towards the imminent victory of LV, and when that came crashing down he would have had his work cut out clearing his name (According to Fudge in GoF p613 Lucius was `cleared' which presumably means that he had to stand trial or at least pull a lot of strings at that point). Not a lot of space left for paternal bonding there ? and even after the trial he had to work to regain acceptance into society, as well as dealing with his own disappointment/frustrated rage etc at the Death Eaters' failure. I reckon that by the time Lucius starts to get his own life back together, he finds himself in his Manor with a little boy and a wife, neither of whom he has been able to relate to for a while. As a result, Narcissa will have poured out all the affection that she couldn't share with Lucius into Draco (possibly being quite indulgent to try to make up for Lucius' black moods), who relates to her but has probably learned to keep out of his father's way. What gives Lucius the motivation to rebuild his life? Maybe he does feel some affection for his son and wants to give him the best he can, or maybe he's more concerned with re-establishing the family honour. Either way, he has to give Draco a sense of his heritage, but he doesn't know how to establish the father/son relationship. So he draws on his own father's example... I would guess that Lucius would have been brought up in an authoritarian manner. According to Miller (eg pp96-102), the fundamental characteristics of this sort of childrearing is that the child's spontaneous reactions are suppressed by the parents ? either consciously (from following 19th century pedagogy that insisted that children's wills had to be broken to make them conform) or unconsciously (because the parents are too caught up with their own inner turmoil to be able to deal with the child's). If a parent is angry at a young child, that child, being utterly dependent, is faced with the choice between losing the love/protection of the all- powerful parent or `admitting' to being in the wrong. Unless there is even one adult to validate the child's emotions s/he is likely to suppress them in order to retain the `love' of the parent. This happens early enough in life that there is no conscious memory of it, and pedagogical `experts' used to believe that this proved there was no resulting damage. However, people brought up in this way are unable to recognise and verbalise wrongs done to them, so when attacked they have less control over their reactions. They are likely to lash out at either themselves or others, and as parents are unable to relate to the needs of their children. This IMO fits with what we see of Lucius, who clearly has strong emotions that he can barely keep in check when thwarted. Incidentally, another consequence of authoritarian upbringing is that the victim's inner development will have been limited to learning how to obey a superior figure, so they are likely to be drawn to support a strong leader. [According to Miller (pg 65-75) this is one reason why Hitler was embraced so enthusiastically in 1933.] In the Potterverse, if such childrearing practices were more rigidly adhered to in the pure-blood upper classes, we have here a psychological as well as a political reason for their support of Voldemort. For what it's worth though, I'm not sure that was at the root of Lucius' relationship to LV ? from what little we've seen of their interaction so far (GoF p 564) he's trying to smooth-talk his way out of trouble, but unlike others he isn't grovelling (eg he calls Voldemort `My Lord' not `master'). I suspect that his allegiance to Voldemort was a strategic political move on his part, and that Voldemort's use of Lucius' first name indicates that he derived more political advantage from Lucius' participation than just another fighting wand. IMO Lucius grew up with an obedient respect for his father but the emotional deprivation of his authoritarian upbringing required him to still seek a sense of identity in something more powerful than himself as an adult. I would guess that he fixed on the immutable family heritage and honour, as a more generalised version of his relationship to his father. He therefore **needs** to defend his family's standing to maintain his own security, which would explain his bitter resentment about the loss of pure-bloods' status (as seen in B&B), and his attempts to transmit the sense of Malfoy superiority to Draco. Speaking of whom... Does Lucius care about Draco? I doubt he would understand such a question. I doubt he perceives Draco as a person as opposed to a part of the Malfoy line, because I doubt he perceives himself as a person independent of being a Malfoy. If he has suppressed his own desires in order to do his duty (as he understands it), how can he possibly perceive or comprehend Draco's? Add to that the probability that Lucius has spent much of the previous decade or two committing ? or at least facilitating ? cold- blooded murder. Not the best preparation for caring parenthood - to do what he did he would have had to disregard any human responses that had survived his upbringing as brutally as he disregarded his victims. No wonder he's so cold by the time we get to meet him... Does Draco care about Lucius? I think the way he speaks of Lucius at school indicates a respect/fear mix ? he emphasises his political power rather than their relationship. My guess is that Lucius has probably tried to make an impression on his son through intimidation and bribery (it's how he deals with everyone else...), but of course what Draco really needs from his father is respect. And I think this is not likely to be forthcoming: By the time Lucius started to take a real interest in his son, Draco would have formed his primary attachment to Narcissa. She wouldn't have the same intense emotional need as Lucius to revere the Malfoy family traditions (especially if she feels that Malfoy pride was responsible for Lucius' (in retrospect mistaken) allegiance to Voldemort). If she has been feeling neglected herself, she is unlikely to support Lucius in an authoritarian assault on her son's emotions. Given her importance to Draco (as indicated by his vicious reaction when Harry insults her in GoF p180) it is likely that she gave Draco some emotional validation, thereby sabotaging Lucius' attempt to replicate his own stern upbringing. I suspect that Lucius senses he isn't getting through and tries to buy the child's respect/love (suggested by Draco's confidence in PS/SS Chap 5 that he could `bully' Lucius into buying him a broomstick). Between this and Narcissa's pampering (frequent packets of sweets from home - PS pg108), Draco has probably always been able to get what he wants (unless his father is in a particularly ferocious mood). So Draco's only restraint has been fear ? he has not learnt *self*- control. He hasn't had to repress his emotions as thoroughly as Lucius did; and though he has picked up his family's sense of its own importance he doesn't seem to believe in it enough to use it as a driver to build his own character. In my opinion, this means that he will never have the motivation or the capacity to defer meeting his desires necessary to follow in his father's footsteps. Lucius knows that, and is disappointed in Draco and by extension his own failure as a father (whether he would admit that to himself or not, this would give his expressions of disappointment a more biting edge). Draco has therefore been brought up steeped in tales of his family's great heritage, but he has also been made to feel he doesn't quite measure up (eg1 the scene in Borgin & Burkes ? not just in the direct criticism of Draco's marks, but in the casual way Lucius bosses him around, and eg2 elsewhere in CoS Lucius knows he can't trust Draco with knowledge of the diary or the previous Chamber opening). Therefore ? and I think this is key to much of Draco's behaviour in canon ? underlying the self-assurance he tries to project is a constant need to prove himself, to gain the respect of his powerful father. Unfortunately for him, he's ended up in the same school year as Hero!Harry and TopStudent!Hermione, so he's unlikely to win glory there. Having been told all his life that being a Malfoy means you belong at the top of the heap, he doesn't know how to deal with not being there ? if he were truly secure in his superiority, he would be able to get on with carving out his own niche without the need to taunt the others so much. Instead, he talks up his family's wealth, political influence and Dark reputation, trying to claim status by association and reacting angrily when someone disagrees. This lack of control/self-respect does nothing to gain the respect of his father. In B&B Lucius makes it clear that he regards it as a liability: "I would remind you that it is not ? prudent ? to appear less than fond of Harry Potter" (CoS p43). Perhaps the harshness of Lucius' reaction stems from his own unmet and buried childhood emotional needs, and his (subconscious?) awareness of his own difficulty in controlling emotions. He doesn't have the self- awareness, empathy or parenting skill to understand what lies behind Draco's `weakness' or his own irritation at it, so reacts by putting Draco down. And so the vicious circle turns... Right, that's my seven-Galleons-worth! If you can swallow all that, then turning to some of the Lucius/Draco incidents recently discussed: Shane said (wrt buying Slytherin team brooms): > Rather than going out and practising with Draco, > encouraging him to be a better player and gaining > a position on the team through talent, he buys > Draco a way in. This would reflect concern with how > things look, rather than genuine concern for his > son's welfare. On the other hand, it doesn't `look' very good that he buys his way in, does it? I think that's just the way Lucius operates ? he has the power to get what he wants, and he believes he has the right to do so. Why waste time developing talent when you have the means to get what you want without it? Whether consciously or not, Lucius is showing Draco how to wield the wealth he will inherit. Jenny from ravenclaw said: > [at the QWC] Draco settles himself comfortably > *between*both of his parents. [snip] Draco sitting > between his parents is a symbol of their protection > of him. He is their link, their center, their focus JKR doesn't say `comfortably,' though... I think this can go either way. Maybe his parents are too estranged to sit next to each other; maybe Narcissa wants to sit next to Draco and Lucius is afraid Draco would make a social gaffe with whoever is sitting on her other side; maybe both Lucius and Narcissa want to sit beside non-family-members to enhance their social network; maybe Draco wants to flank himself with the wealth and security and status that his parents represent; or maybe they are a happy nuclear family and Draco is the apple of his parents' eyes. Jenny also said: > I actually imagine that Lucius sees Draco just > about every time he visits Hogwarts. We certainly > know that Draco gets a lot of information from his > father I agree with you, though that isn't necessarily an indication of parental concern. I'm sure there's just as much information flowing the other way that Lucius is only too glad to put to bad use. And finally (phew!): Jenny concluded: > Now, whether or not Draco is or will be evil is a > whole other debate... Evil? I don't think he has it in him. Bitter and twisted, probably; used by evil, possibly; committing evil acts, maybe; but *being* evil? I don't think he has the self-assurance ;-) Chthonia (who probably needs to get out more) From twileen at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 01:46:20 2002 From: twileen at yahoo.com (Twileen Janeen) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mudbloods and Nukes In-Reply-To: <009c01c29a91$1ea8a760$60739d40@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <20021204014620.52674.qmail@web14505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47680 --- rinceceol wrote: > I've sometimes wondered about this: if there was > another great Muggle war (or even in the wars of the > past), do witches and wizards have any way of > protecting themselves from the dangers inherent in > such a war? I mean, if someone nukes England, it > certainly affects the wizard populace as much as the > Muggles, doesn't it? *shrug* > > For that matter, what's stopping somone like > Voldemort (or any Death Eater) from putting Imperius > on, say, the safety inspector at a local nuclear > power plant...when said plant plant blows sky-high, > that would certainly kill enough Muggles. But then > again (don't mind me, I often play my own Devil's > Advocate!), we've not really seen any evidence that > even the most intelligent of Wizards has any useful > knowledge of the Muggle world. Look at Arthur > Weasley! He's head of the Misuse of Muggle > Artifacts office, and he doesn't seem to have a > clue, honestly. Astonishing, really, when you think > about the number of muggle-born wizards and witches > there are out there. > This is a really interesting point. I've come up wth a few ideas. As for Voldemort and his crew: they would never use Muggle weaponry. Voldemort really hates Muggles. He believes that wizards are superior in every way. Using a Muggle invention would be below him. But at the same time it would probably be funny to him to see Muggles destroyed by their own stupid inventions. Another reason even dark wizards would be opposed to nukes: total destruction of earth. What's the fun of ruling the world if that world is a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Similarly, the WW seems to be pretty eco friendly up to now. As for the lack of knowlege: I don't think there has been any opportunity for Arthur or anyone else to talk about this. And even if they did this would probably be a topic for an office in the war department of the MoM. The department for the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts only handles Muggle creations that have been altered with magic. Nukes wouldn't need to be altered to be dangerous. --Twileen __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From twileen at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 01:54:53 2002 From: twileen at yahoo.com (Twileen Janeen) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:54:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Relation to Voldemort In-Reply-To: <19d.cec7a05.2b1e53c3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021204015453.54845.qmail@web14505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47681 > ----Phyllis: > > CoS explored Harry's potential relationship to > Slytherin (and by > > extension, to Voldemort), and concluded that Harry > is *not* related > > to Slytherin (and therefore, by extension, that > he's not related to > > Voldemort, since Voldemort is the last remaining > descendant of > > Slytherin). > > --- eloiseherisson at aol.com wrote: > I think the conclusion is that he is not *descended* > from Slytherin. > Lady Promethia's theory proposes that Voldmort is a > relative by marriage, not > blood (a step great uncle?) of Lily's, which I > guess could be true. Now me: I'm pretty sure the point as gathered from CoS is that Harry is not the *Heir* of Slytherin. He could still possibly be related or even descended from Slytherin. Just for example: I'm a descendent of my great-grandmother but I'm not inheriting a thing when she dies. I still think this theory is very loose, but you never know what JKR will throw at us. -Twileen __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From twileen at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 01:59:16 2002 From: twileen at yahoo.com (Twileen Janeen) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:59:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley ages... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204015916.6545.qmail@web14506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47682 > > Issue? look at the second to last one. Children > usually cannot > remember > > much that happened to them before the age of 5, > maybe 4 if they > have very > > good memories (my psych class kicking in again). Don't forget that wizards seem to have very far-reaching memories. Harry has memories from when he was 1 year old, and those memories are really traumatic as well-- something young people several years older than that would probably have forgotten out of protection for their psyche. -twileen __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Dec 4 02:22:51 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 02:22:51 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47683 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" wrote: > One thing that has puzzle me, is the prank where Sirius sent Snape to > meet the werewolf!Lupin. He was a kid when he did that, teen boys can > be very impulsive, and generally lacking in a lot of forethought. So, > it's understandable that in the 'teen' moment, he would see this as a > joke. Fortunately, James had a little more foresight, saw that this > was a potentially deadly situation, and stopped it. > > But Sirius is an adult now, surely he must see that what he did as a > teen was wrong, and that a deadly joke is no joking matter. I would > think any person, no matter how proud or how much he may still dislike > Snape, would have to see that this was wrong. I don't understand why > he doesn't offer a simple apology like, 'Snape, I was a kid and did > something stupid. Now I realize how wrong I was. Sorry.' > > He doesn't have to beg or grovel or anything else, just a simple 'I > screwed up and I'm sorry'. Or even, 'Snape, I hate your oily guts, but > I was wrong and I'm sorry'. > > Maybe things like this are such minor details that if the author > dwelled on them all, the story would bog down under everyone hugging > and saying they're sorry. But this one point has always bothered me. > He has to see that he was wrong, how could he not? But he has given no > indication that he even acknowledges his mistake. I'm with Marina on this one. In the Shrieking Shack, not only was everyone at a high emotional pitch, but when Snape makes his entrance, he ties up Lupin, and threatens Black with death, perhaps - ("Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will") or the Dementor's Kiss. Snape may or may not have carried through on his threats. But, this is not setting a scene where Sirius will suddenly feel the need to apologize for the Prank, "Gee, sorry about that werewolf thing back in school - please don't call in the Dementors." And the scene in the Hospital in GoF comes right after the horror of the graveyard battle between Harry and V, and after the revelations about Moody and Moody/Crouch. Again, people were probably a bit wound up. Snape just gets through a fruitless effort to convince Fudge that V. truly has arisen, Sirius is fresh from the scene in Dumbledore's office...And, Snape's reaction to seeing Sirius is one of great antipathy. Put all this together and again you have a scene where I think it would be illogical for Sirius to suddenly want to make amends or seek a reconciliation with Snape over something that happened so many years ago. It simply is not a priority at that moment. And, in either of these scenes, had Sirius sincerely apologized, do you honestly think Snape would have believed him? Having set up the antagonism between these two so nicely, and now having them grudgingly acknowledge to each other that they are on the same side, (even if Dumbledore had to practically knock their heads together to get them to do so), don't you think JKR is planting the seeds for some sort of close future interaction between the two? Marianne From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 4 02:30:22 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:30:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spy/Snape References: Message-ID: <3DED68BE.3FA74210@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47684 There are other ways of spying then being there in person. Snape could use magical items for spying, contacts in Knockturn Alley, could slip something in the drink of a DE that allows him to see through their eyes for a period of time, etc. etc. If he can't go back in person, he can use disguises and general sneakiness to get information. Just 'a little slip' over Lucius Malfoy's pumpkin juice and he would be spilling his guts, then a little memory charm to make him forget he what happened.. ;) Everyone seems to assume that the only way Snape could return to spying is directly showing up at the DE meetings. In fact, all he needs is to Stupify someone like Crabbe Sr, take his place with a polyjuice potion and a quick obliviate later and Mr Crabbe doesn't remember being stunned.. He only remembers what Snape told him to remember about going to the meeting. Its not really likely for these meetings to last over an hour anyways. Would have to catch the DE before they popped out to the meeting, but we all know how fast Severus can move when he wants to...being he turns up so quickly in some places that one wonders if he uses a time turner.. Jazmyn From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Dec 4 02:34:33 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:34:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco to the Light Side?/ Harry's Relation to Voldemort References: Message-ID: <012201c29b3d$ae835c70$fda1cdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 47685 Felinia writes: > And I honestly do not believe it ever will. I think that if anything, if > Draco does anything to promote what we know as the "side of good", it might > well be in concert with his death in the last book. But I think, more > likely, that not all will end tidy and rosy in the wizarding world; I don't > think that, even with the defeat of Voldemort, that the "purebloods" holding > an elitist attitude about bloodlines is going to change. I know this may sound horrid, but I don't want Draco to die a "hero's death." I don't necessarily *want* him to die, but it may happen. If it does, I think it may be more of a, what's the word, casualty? No. Martyr? No. Anyway, can't find the right word. Something like Voldemort killing/torturing him when he gets in a mood and Lucius standing idly by. Able, but not willing to save him. What's the word for that? Lady Promethia writes: > As far as I can tell no one has brought up the theory of the > ossibility that Lord Voldamort is a relation of Harry's on > Lily's side. Now before everyone starts getting into an uproar about that > being impossible please hear me out and try and follow my theory. I was a firm believer in that for a while. Lily's eye color being green, the green of Slytherin. The fact that Tom Riddle's eye color was never mentioned. Voldemort's hesitation to kill Lily, the "silly girl" comments, among other things. But then you have Riddle describing himself as being so much like Harry, who looks so much like James. So I had it so twisted around in my mind that I confused myself completely. At the moment I don't really think Harry is related to Voldemort on either side, though I still think the combined heir of Gryffindor/Slytherin would've been cool if it had worked. :) Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Dec 4 03:02:49 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:02:49 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47686 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" wrote: > > But Sirius is an adult now, surely he must see that what he did as a > teen was wrong, and that a deadly joke is no joking matter. I would > think any person, no matter how proud or how much he may still dislike > Snape, would have to see that this was wrong. I don't understand why > he doesn't offer a simple apology like, 'Snape, I was a kid and did > something stupid. Now I realize how wrong I was. Sorry.' > Apologize?? Are you mad, man?? Don't you know that Real Wizards Don't Apologize? It says so right there in post 36556, so it must be true. :D No, really. This apology issue comes up from time to time, and it really perplexes me, especially in the case of the Pr*nk. We *so* don't know what happened, especially in the aftermath thereof, that we can't really go around saying that "Sirius should apologize to Snape" or "Snape became disillusioned with Dumbledore when he didn't expel Sirius." That's more HPfGU "canon" than real canon, and I don't accept a word of it. Besides, for all we know, post-Pr*nk, Dumbledore made Sirius apologize to Snape, but because Snape is a major grudge-holder, he didn't forgive him. Consider the following: When Snape entered Hogwarts, he knew more curses than most 7th years. He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against Wolf!Lupin. From his perspective, he wasn't sending anyone to his death. In all likelihood, he wasn't, but Snape makes it out to be that way (which makes an interesting case for his life-debt to James: it's more manufactured than real). Sneaking around trying to get MWPP expelled is not as insignificant as most people make it out to be. Getting expelled from Hogwarts means that you never become a fully qualified wizard, so any good employment opportunities evaporate. Considering that Lupin was going to have a hard enough time getting a job as a werewolf, preventing him from becoming a fully qualified wizard would sentence him to a terribly desolate future (yeah, worse than he has it now). Sirius was justifiably angered by the fact that Snape was hell-bent on ruining Lupin's (and his, James's and Peter's) life. He had undoubtedly confronted Snape about it before, but Snape persisted. Snape can read a lunar chart as well as anyone else; he must have suspected the truth about Lupin. Why didn't he go ahead and tattle instead of hounding MWPP? Furthermore, the exchange between Snape and Dumbledore at the end of PoA indicates that Snape's perception of the incident is not the same as Dumbledore's. "Sirius Black showed that he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen," he breathed. "You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill *me*?" "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," said Dumbledore quietly. I don't think Dumbledore saw it as attempted murder. I don't think he agrees with Snape on this point at all and is reminding Snape that his perspective on the Pr*nk hasn't changed with time. There's too much untold yet to assert that one party is guilty of attempted murder, or worse, of not apologizing. We already know that Sirius is capable of tremendous remorse: if he's not feeling remorseful about the Pr*nk, maybe it's because he doesn't need to. --Dicentra, offering the only kind of Sirius Apology we're likely to get From alicit at aol.com Wed Dec 4 03:11:12 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:11:12 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley ages... Message-ID: <6d.38e54c0.2b1ecc50@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47687 In a message dated 12/3/2002 9:14:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, twileen at yahoo.com writes: > Don't forget that wizards seem to have very > far-reaching memories. Harry has memories from when he > was 1 year old, and those memories are really > traumatic as well-- something young people several > years older than that would probably have forgotten > out of protection for their psyche. This has always worried me. Not to go too far from my question of Weasley ages (for which I am still lacking the canon... :( ) All Harry remembers on his own is the green light. He only remembers the other things from what the dementors feed back to him. How do we know that those are his *real* memories and are not just implanted or embellished by the dementors? Ooh, I can tell this is gonna start a thread, but before we go off on this tangent. PLEASE! tell me where the Weasley's birth order is stated! I become more and more convinced daily that Charlie is the older son. -Scheherazade, going crazy over charlie weasley [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 03:17:21 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:17:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasley ages... In-Reply-To: <6d.38e54c0.2b1ecc50@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021204031721.24217.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47688 --- Scheherazade wrote: > Ooh, I can tell this is gonna start a thread, but before we go off on > this > tangent. PLEASE! tell me where the Weasley's birth order is stated! I > become > more and more convinced daily that Charlie is the older son. Sorry to disappoint you, hon, but COS says very clearly, "Bill was the oldest Weasley brother. He and the next brother, Charlie, had already left Hogwarts." ("At Flourish and Blotts", p.46 US paperback) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From editor at texas.net Wed Dec 4 03:16:30 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:16:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spy/Snape References: <3DED68BE.3FA74210@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <008001c29b43$8b163e00$8605a6d8@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47689 Jazmyn pointed out > There are other ways of spying then being there in person. Snape could > use magical items for spying, contacts in Knockturn Alley, could slip > something in the drink of a DE that allows him to see through their eyes > for a period of time, etc. etc. If he can't go back in person, he can > use disguises and general sneakiness to get information. Just 'a little > slip' over Lucius Malfoy's pumpkin juice and he would be spilling his > guts, then a little memory charm to make him forget he what happened.. > ;) > > Everyone seems to assume that the only way Snape could return to spying > is directly showing up at the DE meetings. In fact, all he needs is to > Stupify someone like Crabbe Sr, take his place with a polyjuice potion > and a quick obliviate later and Mr Crabbe doesn't remember being > stunned.. He only remembers what Snape told him to remember about going > to the meeting. Yeah, all this is true. However, it suffers from the same problem my husband's theory that the goblins will be key to Voldemort's downfall.* It's not what exciting books are written about. Or, to borrow a phrase from a certain Mod, it doesn't Bang. No mortal peril, no hairsbreadth escapes, no pain and suffering, just the wizarding equivalent of an unmarked van with Snape in it with headphones and a video monitor. > Its not really likely for these meetings to last over > an hour anyways. Have you any basis whatsoever for this? If nothing else, Voldemort strikes me as being distinctly the sort of person who loves to hear himself talk and be agreed with. He could use an hour alone on the greetings and what-I've-done-todays, complete with his Grecian chorus of DEs. ~Amanda *If anyone's interested, I can toss it out for consideration again; it's been a while. From funkystargirl21 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 02:23:26 2002 From: funkystargirl21 at hotmail.com (Summer *) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 02:23:26 +0000 Subject: Question about wizards and living.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47690 This may seem like an odd question, but where do Wizards live? I mean, do they live side by side with Muggles, and the Muggles never know it, or do they have their own little Wizard communities? I mean, I guess Muggle born wizards live with other Muggles, such as Hermione does, but what about the rest? I can't really see the Malfoy's living next door to muggles... This may have been addressed in the books, but it has been a while since I've read them! Thanks! Summer _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Malady579 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 04:21:23 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:21:23 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Parents (was: Hagrid's Personality) In-Reply-To: <004101c29b20$c2f6ad00$8d181f3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47691 Shane Wrote: >>(have any of you ever wondered about the logistics of Hagrid's Dad >>and his Mum getting intimate? I don't wonder he decided to wait for >>a more suitably proportioned girl-friend) Rachel wrote: >Oh I've wondered! (though I'm really not as sick and twisted as I >sound - honest!) the logistics blow my mind! Though I suppose kids >(with their innocent young minds ;-) ) wouldn't think about such >things. The last time this was brought up someone (and I say someone because I don't think they would own up to it now) made a fairly plausible suggestion: ::said looking as innocently as possible:: There is the Engorgement Charm. ;) Melody From jasonjacqui at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 03:42:45 2002 From: jasonjacqui at yahoo.com (Jacqui) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:42:45 -0000 Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47692 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Summer *" wrote: > This may seem like an odd question, but where do Wizards live? I mean, do > they live side by side with Muggles, and the Muggles never know it, or do > they have their own little Wizard communities? I mean, I guess Muggle born > wizards live with other Muggles, such as Hermione does, but what about the > rest? I can't really see the Malfoy's living next door to muggles... This > may have been addressed in the books, but it has been a while since I've > read them! Thanks! > > Summer Me: Well IMO I think that the full blown Wizard families...live out in the middle of no where...Like the Weasleys....I apologize, but I do not have my book handy, but I seem to remember somoone...maybe Ron saying how is house was so far in the boonies ( I am pretty sure that wasn't the word he used :P )that the "muggles" wouldn't see his family on thier brooms...Again I am paraphrasing... Or they could bewitch their houses like Hogwarts, but in most cases I think that if they do live near other families it is wizard families that are near by... Could you imagine being a muggle, walking down the street and seeing a game od Quiddich???? Probably not a good idea... Jacqui From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 04:52:30 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:52:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204045230.38008.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47693 --- Jacqui wrote: > Well IMO I think that the full blown Wizard families...live out in > the middle of no where...Like the Weasleys....I apologize, but I do > not have my book handy, but I seem to remember somoone...maybe Ron > saying how is house was so far in the boonies ( I am pretty sure that > wasn't the word he used :P )that the "muggles" wouldn't see his > family on thier brooms...Again I am paraphrasing... Actually, Fred said that their house was "just outside" the village of Ottery St. Catchpole, but it wasn't specified just how FAR outside that was. They could fly their broomsticks around because the Burrow had a little wooded clearing attached to it, so they could fly as long as they didn't fly above tree-height. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From charisjulia at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 05:01:07 2002 From: charisjulia at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 05:01:07 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47694 Pip wrote: >Dumbledore lives *within* the books. >And you can look at him from the outside. >Or you can try and analyse him from the inside. > >But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously. > >And that's why 'metathinking is not fair play'. You're asking me to >look in two directions simultaneously. > >And I go cross-eyed ;-) And that is why it is to be rejoiced that man was given the gift of a neck. How about simply trying to * turn* your head to the one direction after you've taken in all you need from the other? F. Scott Fitzgerald said that "The test of a first--rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." ---------------------- " Wha--!" Charis Julia starts up sharply. "Hang on! That. . . I mean, I know where. . . Just wait one minute." And jumping up from her chair she rushes purposefully towards a rather dark corner at the other end of the Royal George, opens a small, hidden door, stumbles up the rickety, winding staircase behind, dashes through the narrow, unlit passage above, climbs through the trap door in the ceiling and emerges right in front of an old, battered wardrobe. She flings it open. The rusty hinges creak in un?oiled protest. Peering into the darkness inside the listies can just make out her bleary form rummaging wildly about, while indistinct mumblings drift up from the gloom. "Just be a sec . . . I'm * sure* it's in here somewhere . . . specifically remember tossing it into the back here after the last time I. . . Aha! Here we go!" She drags out a rather wonky and somewhat rusty and altogether quite blurry * something* and proudly holds it up for inspection. "My intelligence you know." Pause. "Oh. Yes. Err, well, I know it doesn't look like much right now. But, I do assure you that once you dust it off and tune it up and find the lost screws an' all it really is quite first?rate . . ." ---------------- I really can't see why we cannot use both the inside?out * and* the outside?in approaches to literary analysis simultaneously. Surely after all that is exactly the point at which we, the readers, have one up on both the characters inside the book and the actual, objective reality that this is, after all, really just a * book*. A fantasy. Fiction. >That JKR is the ultimate orchestrator is the view of the *audience*. >The audience knows they have a book in their hand, and they can see >JK Rowling on the front cover. > >But if I wish to discover Dumbledore's reasons for keeping Hogwarts >open in CoS, when students were getting petrified right left and >centre, saying: `because JKR wanted the book to continue beyond >Chapter 8' is a cop-out. Well, that particular comment is indeed a cop?out, if not for any other reason then because it is ludicrously obvious. It is of course _ true_. JKR's intention to write a book numbering more than 8 chapters was indeed one of the (very basic) reasons that Hogwarts didn't close in the middle of CoS. From my point of view at least I'm afraid that that is an undeniable fact. It's just that I also think it a rather boring and barren fact. It doesn't lead us anywhere. It is a conclusion (and a self?evident one at that) in and of it's self. "JKR wrote CoS in the way she did because that's the way she wanted it". The only further comment one can make, really, is "Duh". However, that doesn't mean that we cannot examine * why* JKR wanted CoS to continue past the point of the first petrification. Or what made her choose those especial plot devises she made use of in so continuing. Or how the decision to keep the school open contributes to the development of Dumbledore's character. And these (I think) * are* interesting points. But why should indulging in all of this, well, I guess, meta?thinking (sorry Grey Wolf. I have to admit I too like Eloise am currently rather hazy on the distinction between `meta--thinking' and `authorial intent'.) prevent us from accepting * at the same time* your Stanislavskian method of examining the text, Pip? This list surely has never heretofore enforced any such prohibition. Theory Bay at any rate should be the supreme proof that both approaches can harmoniously co?exist. In fact what we do do in T?Bay most of the time is precisely that: we choose a particular plot ? devise or literary convention or desirable ending or, well, theory of any kind, and then see how it fits in with the interior logic of the book. That is why we can freely discuss whether a particular scenario "Bangs" or whether Pettigrew will be "redeemed" while at the same time enjoying a nice, quiet cup of tea with Avery. It is also why we can sport swanky FEATHERBOAS, plot Bloody Ambushes or go out hedgehog hunting. We do not dream up our theories out of thin air. Some, of course are wilder than others, but they all have to have a basis in Can(n)on. They * all* relay on "internal evidence". If not, as Eloise said, someone or other will gleefully turn up waving a yellow flag in our faces. In fact I would actually go further than that and suggest that it not only desirable but also * necessary* to take both these two views simultaneously into consideration. Every action depicted in the books has to make sense both from the outside and from the inside. Otherwise the very plot just won't work. A character's actions have * got* to make sense from the point of meta?thinking. If not your whole book is in danger of ending up in the SCOW. At the same time, however, the work has to have interior life, your characters have to come alive, your plot has to seem believable, indeed * be* believed. Otherwise it will be boring and has no pull. For example: I can say that Ron had to have a blow up with Harry in the middle of GoF because this introduces an interesting element to the balance in their relationship, it fortifies the feeling of seclusion Harry experiences in the work up to the First Task, it enriches Ron's character and expands it's dimensions, it gives a touching little lesson about the value of friendship and so on and so on. This explains how this plot twist fits in the story. And it * does* have to fit in the story. You can't just say that the boys happened to get out of the wrong side of bed that morning and this comes out of the blue and leads to nothing. The scene has to be * worthy* of being mentioned. There are limitations to how much one can treat the book as if it actually were a reality. * Co-- instantaneously * however to recognising this fact, I can say that Ron is behaving like a dork and that someone ought to give him a good butt on the head. But it doesn't matter. We love you anyway, Ron. :--) >For example: 'The Harry Potter books are an example of the Hero's >Journey'. > >So? This is an 'audience' viewpoint. It provides absolutely no >assistance to an analysis of what Harry says and does, what these >actions say about his character and motives, whether he has plans or >is just drifting along. No, but that doesn't mean that it is a totally useless observation. It's a perfectly valid point. >Or, 'Rowling's use of stereotype characterisation is shown by the >portrayal of Voldemort as the stereotypical Evil Overlord'. > >So? Fine - he's an evil overlord. But what does he do? What does he >say? > >And if you analyse what he does and says in detail, you discover >what the analysis of the literary conventions Rowling uses might >miss: that JKR has broken the stereotypes in certain ways. For >example: Voldemort isn't stupid. Far from it. And he's not >overconfident in facing Harry in the Graveyard. He spends >considerable time and effort there in trying to weaken Harry by >exhaustion, fear and crucio. Beginning from the idea that Voldemort is an Evil Overlord does not necessarily have to lead you to a narrow?minded interpretation of Canon based solely on stereotypical literary conventions. How about starting off from the idea that "most Evil Overlords are stupid" and then comparing Voldemort to this stereotype and trying to see how he matches up to it? That would be examining the text "from the outside in", but it needn't blind you to a more original analysis. *************** Grey Wolf wrote: >Grey Wolf, who won't bother with the rest of the post - the viewpoints >are simply too different and he know no easy way of explaining his >point of view to Eloise Aw, come on Grey Wolf! Won't you at least try? Pretty please? Because I must say, almost all of Eloise's questions can be seconded by myself. *************** Oh. And maybe this would the right time to introduce my main objection to MAGIC DISHWASHER. No, I haven't got any can(n)onical problems with the theory. I can't find anything in Can(n)on to contradict it in any way. What I don't understand however, and maybe you can explain this to me, is * why* JKR would choose to follow this scenario. Why would the reader wish her to do so? What satisfaction is derived from it? What catharsis do we achieve at the end? I'm not criticizing. I'm just trying to understand. What's the appeal of the theory? Pippin wrote that she >honestly doesn't think that Dishwasher proponents have >horns and tails, but is still trying to understand exactly how JKR's >interview statement that "Dumbledore is the epitome of >goodness" > >http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html > >works with the MD theory if "goodness" is neither relative (all >burning building illustrations) nor compromised. The idea that >one can be just a little bit unprincipled *is* the Devil's argument, >no? The way I understand it MD forces Dumbledore to stop being "good" and "wise" in favour of "very clever". So, well, what is the moral behind it all? What message is MD supposed to be sending off? What end does it pursue? I'm afraid I just don't get it. Charis Julia, who actually doesn't get a lot of things about MAGIC DISHWASHER, *despite * having a first rate intelligence buried somewhere in the back of her wardrobe ;--) Hypothetic Alley: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html Inish Alley: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 06:36:57 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 06:36:57 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?I=92m_Dreaming_Of_A_Black_Christmas_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47695 I'm Dreaming Of A Black Christmas To the tune of Irving Berlin's I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas THE SCENE: Gryffindor Commons. HARRY says goodbye to his fellow students, on their way home for Christmas break. Left alone, he dreams of what might have been had his Godfather's innocence been legally established. HARRY I'm dreaming of a Black Christmas A family I've never known Catch the Hogwarts Express To meet Sirius And head for our magic home I'm dreaming of a Black Christmas A house festooned with fairy lights Butterbeer we'd share through the night While Hedwig could keep herself in sight I'm dreaming of a Black Christmas Oh, how our joy would be increased! Just us two old bachelors With our wands and spatulas Would serve up a Yuletide feast I'm dreaming of a Black Christmas All 'round my bed the presents stacked But the world's so far out of whack - Will I ever spend a Christmas day with Black? (HARRY sighs deeply, and exits to his room. Enter, after several seconds, a brightly-colored tropical bird, bearing a card and an immense beribboned package. After a moment's hesitation, the bird darts into HARRY's room.) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 12/04/02 with 47 new filks) From twileen at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 06:01:49 2002 From: twileen at yahoo.com (Twileen Janeen) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:01:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204060149.27950.qmail@web14512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47696 --- Summer * wrote: > This may seem like an odd question, but where do > Wizards live? I mean, do > they live side by side with Muggles, and the Muggles > never know it, or do > they have their own little Wizard communities? I > mean, I guess Muggle born > wizards live with other Muggles, such as Hermione > does, but what about the > rest? I can't really see the Malfoy's living next > door to muggles... This > may have been addressed in the books, but it has > been a while since I've > read them! Thanks! > > Summer > > I always imagined that most wizards lived sort of like the Weasleys. Just outside or in little towns in houses that Muggles don't quite notice. I believe in book 4 Molly writes in a letter that the postman doesn't even know where the Burrow is. Besides that there is Hogsmeade, and perhaps a few settlements (no canon on this that I'm aware of, just my imagination taking over) that are mostly wizard occupied. -twileen __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 4 11:31:14 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:31:14 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47697 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: > Pip wrote: > > >Dumbledore lives *within* the books. > >And you can look at him from the outside. > >Or you can try and analyse him from the inside. > > > >But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously. > > > >And that's why 'metathinking is not fair play'. You're asking me > >tolook in two directions simultaneously. > > > >And I go cross-eyed ;-) > > And that is why it is to be rejoiced that man was given the gift > of a neck. How about simply trying to * turn* your head to the one > direction after you've taken in all you need from the other? > Pip: You seem to have missed that I used the word *simultaneously* . Which according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary means 'occuring, operating, or done at the same time.' If I use my neck to turn my head and look in another directions, I am *not* looking at both views simultaneously. I am looking at both views in *rapid succession*. > > F. Scott Fitzgerald said that "The test of a first--rate > intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind >at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." > I think several people (other than Fitzgerald) have said similar things - Walt Whitman amongst others. ::Grins cheerfully:: And I can also hold several opposing theories in my head at the same time. Currently I'm holding the Dishwasher, Lollipops (just good friends variant), and CHOP (Cranium of Headmaster on a Platter). > > I really can't see why we cannot use both the inside?out * and* > the outside?in approaches to literary analysis simultaneously. > Surely after all that is exactly the point at which we, the > readers, have one up on both the characters inside the book and > the actual, objective reality that this is, after all, really just >a * book*. A fantasy. Fiction. > It is? You mean the Wizarding World isn't real? Oh :-( What about Santa Claus, is he not real too? [Grin] This is rather like asking why you can't have a game of draughts [US Checkers] simultaneously with a game of chess. After all, they both use the same board... > Pipsqueak > >That JKR is the ultimate orchestrator is the view of the > >*audience*.The audience knows they have a book in their hand, and > >they can see JK Rowling on the front cover. > > > >But if I wish to discover Dumbledore's reasons for keeping > >Hogwarts open in CoS, when students were getting petrified right > >left and centre, saying: `because JKR wanted the book to continue > >beyond Chapter 8' is a cop-out. > > Charis Julia: > Well, that particular comment is indeed a cop?out, if not for any > other reason then because it is ludicrously obvious. It is of >course _ true_.It doesn't lead us anywhere. It > is a conclusion (and a self?evident one at that) in and of it's > self. "JKR wrote CoS in the way she did because that's the way she > wanted it". The only further comment one can make, really, is "Duh". > Pip: Which was my point, actually. And I've seen that very argument used on this list. > Charis Julia: > However, that doesn't mean that we cannot examine * why* JKR > wanted CoS to continue past the point of the first petrification. > Or what made her choose those especial plot devises she made use > of in so continuing. Or how the decision to keep the school open > contributes to the development of Dumbledore's character. And > these (I think) *are* interesting points. > Pip: They are deeply interesting points, and should be discussed. But a critique of MAGIC DISHWASHER is not the place to discuss them. An 'outside in' argument is valid *in itself*. What I was trying to say in my post was that 'outside in' is not very valid when used as an argument against a theory based in and requiring evidence from the 'inside out' approach. > Charis Julia: > But why should indulging in all of this, well, I guess, meta? > thinking (sorry Grey Wolf. I have to admit I too like Eloise am > currently rather hazy on the distinction between `meta--thinking' > and `authorial intent'.) Pip: Aren't we all;-). I don't know what Eloise means by 'authorial intent' and, despite my repeated attempts at explanations, I admit that 99.999% of this list seem a bit confused about meta-thinking. Charis Julia: > prevent us from accepting * at the same > time* your Stanislavskian method of examining the text, Pip? This > list surely has never heretofore enforced any such prohibition. > Theory Bay at any rate should be the supreme proof that both > approaches can harmoniously co?exist. In fact what we do do in T? > Bay most of the time is precisely that: They * all* rely > on "internal evidence". If not,as Eloise said, someone or other > will gleefully turn up waving a yellow flag in our faces. > > > In fact I would actually go further than that and suggest that it > not only desirable but also * necessary* to take both these two > views simultaneously into consideration. Pip: No. I argue below that your own example shows you rapidly switching from an 'outside' to an 'inside' view and then back again to 'outside'. 'In rapid succession' is not the same thing as 'simultaneously'. The outside and inside viewpoints are not the same. Charis Julia: >Every action depicted in > the books has to make sense both from the outside and from the > inside. Otherwise the very plot just won't work. A character's > actions have * got* to make sense from the point of meta?thinking. > If not your whole book is in danger of ending up in the SCOW. At > the same time, however, the work has to have interior life, your > characters have to come alive, your plot has to seem believable, > indeed * be* believed. Otherwise it will be boring and has no > pull. > > For example: I can say that Ron had to have a blow up with Harry >in the middle of GoF because this introduces an interesting >element to the balance in their relationship, it fortifies the >feeling of seclusion Harry experiences in the work up to the First >Task, it enriches Ron's character and expands it's dimensions, it > gives a touching little lesson about the value of friendship and > so on and so on. This explains how this plot twist fits in the > story. And it * does* have to fit in the story. You can't just say > that the boys happened to get out of the wrong side of bed that > morning and this comes out of the blue and leads to nothing. The > scene has to be * worthy* of being mentioned. There are > limitations to how much one can treat the book as if it actually > were a reality. * Co-- > instantaneously * however to recognising this fact, I can say that > Ron is behaving like a dork and that someone ought to give him a > good butt on the head. But it doesn't matter. We love you anyway, > Ron. :--) Pip: And what relevance does this have in the sense of *why* Ron has a blow up with Harry? Could you tell me which words and actions you are pointing to as evidence that this improves their friendship? Is there anything in the book which says that Ron's snit comes out of nowhere, or is it in fact evidence of a development of Ron's motivations and inner emotional life, as shown by the words and actions of characters in PS/SS, CoS, PoA, and GoF? Might I speculate on where Ron's motivations and inner emotional life might be taking him? Whether they signify that he has some as yet unrevealed plan [involving getting very rich, perhaps?]. >From the 'outside in' approach your comments are valid, and perceptive. But the point is that I'm saying that Ron is in his snit at this point, shown by his behaviour to Harry on such-and-such a page, and this is a development of his problem with jealousy of Harry, shown by Ron's actions in such-and-such a book and by his comments at p. so-and-so of GoF. Saying 'it's in this position in the story because of these reasons' doesn't contradict any of the points I've made - but it doesn't give me any additional evidence to play with, either. As I have said , if I'm working from the 'inside out' position then the 'outside in' viewpoint that keeps being used on the Dishwasher is largely irrelevant. Basically, you're saying that the 'outside in' viewpoint is the superior one. That it is the position to take. That it trumps any use of the character's own 'inside' viewpoint. [card playing metaphor this time]. And yes, Ron is behaving like a dork. (But you've actually switched to Harry's viewpoint and are still looking at Ron from the outside) [grin] > > Pip: > >For example: 'The Harry Potter books are an example of the Hero's > >Journey'. > > > >So? This is an 'audience' viewpoint. It provides absolutely no > >assistance to an analysis of what Harry says and does, what these > >actions say about his character and motives, whether he has plans > >or is just drifting along. > Charis Julia: > No, but that doesn't mean that it is a totally useless > observation. It's a perfectly valid point. Pip: Of course it's a perfectly valid point. And we can have a wonderful argument about it sometime. *But* if I'm looking at things from the 'inside out' viewpoint IT IS USELESS! Because, it tells me nothing about what Harry has said, done or acted, or *why* Harry's done the things he's done. Because he's on a hero's journey? Does he know that? Is it actually any part of his motivation? Does his behaviour in the books change because he's on a hero's journey? Could you point to the line [or lines] of description or dialogue, please? [I know you *can* show Harry is on a hero's journey, Charis, I'm just making the point that it's not much use from the internal viewpoint] > > Pip: > >Or, 'Rowling's use of stereotype characterisation is shown by the > >portrayal of Voldemort as the stereotypical Evil Overlord'. > > > >So? Fine - he's an evil overlord. But what does he do? What does > >he say? > > > >And if you analyse what he does and says in detail, you discover > >what the analysis of the literary conventions Rowling uses might > >miss: that JKR has broken the stereotypes in certain ways. For > >example: Voldemort isn't stupid. Far from it. And he's not > >overconfident in facing Harry in the Graveyard. He spends > >considerable time and effort there in trying to weaken Harry by > >exhaustion, fear and crucio. > Charis Julia: > Beginning from the idea that Voldemort is an Evil Overlord does > not necessarily have to lead you to a narrow?minded > interpretation of Canon based solely on stereotypical literary > conventions. How about starting off from the idea that "most Evil > Overlords are stupid" and then comparing Voldemort to this > stereotype and trying to see how he matches up to it? That would > be examining the text "from the outside in", but it needn't blind > you to a more original analysis. > Pip: I would argue that you're actually switching from one viewpoint to the other without realising it. When you decide that you want to examine Voldemort from the Evil Overlord stereotype perspective, you are 'outside' the books, when you examine his character by actions, words, descriptive text then you are 'inside' the books, then when you finally write the paper comparing him to other stereotypical evil overlords you've moved to 'outside' again. Seriously, though, I have so many times seen people using the 'outside' view of the books without really examining the internal evidence at all. Part of the reason I wrote #4044 was because I was getting so frustrated at listmembers who kept confidently informing me that Voldemort was telling the truth in the Graveyard scene because 'Evil Overlords *always* tell the truth at the climax. It's a rule'. This may be why the Dishwasher Defense Team often seem to get so err.. vehement against metathinking. It's very often the posters *opinion* about where the books are going, without any evidence to back it up with. Like 'Harry is the centre of the books. They're called 'Harry Potter and...' Yup. From the outside viewpoint, he's the centre. The books are told from his pov, for one thing. But if I was examining *Fudge* from the 'inside' view, trying to establish whether his actions, words, text descriptions show an evil man, a misguided man, or simply someone stuck in events far too big for him, would *Harry Potter* be the centre of that? From Fudge's pov? When we've only got to Book 4? And what relevance does 'Harry is the centre of the books' have to a theory about the actions of *Dumbledore* and *Voldemort*? Which is what the Dishwasher is? I'll have to stop here, because I'm going to be away from my computer for another couple of days, and must rush off now. Pip!Squeak From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 11:42:49 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:42:49 -0000 Subject: Some Questions = Theories Wanted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47698 wrote: > 1) How would Ron have explained to the rest of the Weasley's about > the disappearence of Scabbers and aquiring Pig? We can see that they > do not know that Sirius is innocent in GoF and Ron supposedly has no > money... How would he explain Pig? I agree with those people who point out that everyone thought Scabbers was dead, and he could just claim that Pig was a gift. > 2)The Weasley's have a clock that tells each of them where each > member of the family is, home, work etc... Why then, during Harry and > Ron's adventures with the spiders, would the clock for Ron not appear > on "mortal peril"? Or when Ginny was in the Chamber or talking to Tom > wouldn't the Weasley's be straight over to Hogwarts, banging down > Dumbledore's door? Or when Ron was trapped with Sirius? The clock > doesn't know that he's innocent... And he's chained to a werewolf. > Why doesn't the clock tell the Weasely's that they are in "mortal > danger"? Another possibility- the clock wasn't mentioned until Book 4. It is possible that the Weasley's bought it *after* the CoS incident. > 5) How did Sirius know where to find Peter after the Potter's deaths? > He seems to track him down a little too easily... Did Peter plan that > Sirius find him in that particular street? And was it part of his and > Voldemort's original plan, to pretend to blow himself up, thus > framing Sirius for three murders? I was under the impression that Pettigrew, in intending to frame Sirius, went after him, while Sirius, looking for vengeance, went looking for Peter. Only a matter of time before they met. . . That's all from me for now. . . See you all later Roo From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 12:45:35 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:45:35 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47699 I find it curious that we're not supposed to use metathinking in dealing with Pip's MD theory, when waaay back in post 39662 the first point made after the claim that the Voldemort-Potter war is a modern war fought undercover style: > Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United' Kingdom > was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of my and > JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her > fictional civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the > news every day. Now, unless someone is going to claim that Voldemort has been keeping an eye on mundane politics for the past however long and is basing his actions on what he learned there, this is an example of outside information being used to support MD, back at the very beginning. I am not claiming that this is a central pillar of support or anything, merely citing it as an example. CK clicketykeys From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Dec 4 15:19:43 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:19:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: <124.1aeb3379.2b1f770f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47700 I apologise for the lateness of this. Suffering from a surfeit of Real Life, I'm afraid. And I've just missed Pip again. Ah well. Pip: <>> Eloise: > > Well, that kind of depends on your opinion of authorial intent, > > whether it is of any meaning or not, doesn't it? ;-) (And I mean > > the intent of the authors of theories as much as that of the > > authors of books.) > > Pip: > Um, no, I would say it depended on what someone admitted as 'canon'. > > My view is that any factual detail about the internal world of a > book or series of books that can be definitely attributed to the > author is canonical. Hogwarts has 1000 students. Jane Bennet's > favourite colour is yellow. Both of these points are not in the > respective books, the first case being from an interview with JKR, > the second case being from a private letter of Jane Austen's. > > MD is an argument based on canon. JKR is the creator of canon, the > creator of the world of Harry Potter. It is her world, she created > it, we just get to play around in it. She has the last word. > > If she wants it. :-) > > [This is my personal view, not the official list view.] And, obviously, not my view! As I have stated in my reply to Grey Wolf, I do not regard that which an author says or writes but does not publish within the context of his/her books as canon. I do think that your view rather confusingly mixes up canon with authorial intent. These are not the same thing. > > Eloise: > > I'm the first to admit that I don't understand the finer points > >of MD, so this is probably completely wrong, but there's something > I don't get. > > > > If you regarded MD invalidated by what JKR said, wouldn't that > > mean that you were taking into account authorial intent? > > Pip: > I don't know, because I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by > authorial intent [grin]. It sounds suspiciously like some kind of > technical term? > Let me first assure you that I have no special claim to technical literary know-how, having not studied English beyond 'A' Level years and years ago. Yes, it is a technical term, though not very obscure. It refers, unsurprisingly, to the author's intentions and more specifically their pre-eminence in the interpreting of a text. It's a term which comes from hermeneutics (the branch of knowledge which deals with interpretation, particularly of Scripture or literary texts and of which I know nothing), but is really quite easy to grasp. Quite a lot easier than "metathinking", I'd say. (They're both terms I first heard here). I took this definition from a Christian hermeneutics site (if you do a search for "authorial intent" that's mostly what'll come up): "Authorial intent. No reader has the right to impose his own ideas on the text. The only true meaning is what the author himself intended. This rule was first devised to combat allegorizing and other fanciful modes of interpretation which obscured rather than elucidated." I confess that I laughed as I skimmed the page as the theological disputes it outlined were precisely the kind of ones we're having here. As I understand it, and certainly for some of us round here, the idea that a literary text's only true meaning is what the author intended is a little unfashionable. The first discussions regarding authorial intent that I can remember on this site were back in February, in Elkins' "Where's the Canon" thread (34082ff). I picked up on it because the ideas tied in very much with what I had been taught regarding music and the invalidity of supposing that one has to seek to reproduce exactly what the composer had in mind. As I pointed out back then, music *depends* on interpretation. Similarly, literature essentially doesn't exist without the reader. The writer has no control over how the reader chooses to interpret his/her work. Indeed it is quite possible that what the author *writes* may not really be what s/he inteneded. I personally think that Draco very nearly comes into this category. I think JKR *intends* Draco to be a great deal more unpleasant than he is actually portrayed to be, though this is saved from being an issue of mere authorial intent by the fact that she tells us *within the books* that Dudley compares favourably with him. *My* point of view is that what JKR *intends* is irrelevant. She has written what she has written and any theory or interpretation which is consonant with canon (viz. the published texts of the HP books) is legitimate. So, as I said to Grey Wolf, if she said she didn't have MD in mind, but by the end of the series the canon still all fitted and there was nothing intrinsically to disprove it, then I would regard it still as a legitimate interpretation of what JKR had written. I do find it rather ironic that I am stating that I would continue to defend as valid your theory, to which I don't adhere, whilst you're arguing that it could be so easily invalidated. > Eloise: > > > > Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking? > > > > If JKR's authorial intent could theoretically retrospectively > >*invalidate* MD, why, if I understand correctly, has it been > > sugggested that it is unfair *now* to use other 'metathinking' > critical tools when evaluating the theory? > > Pip: > Because I didn't use metathinking tools in creating it. As I said, > to me the author's factual knowledge of the world they have created > is canonical. If JKR says Dumbledore never had a plan about the > rebirthing potion, that is canon to me, whether it appears in the > printed books or not. Which we cannot agree over as we have different views on what constitutes canon. And at the time of writing you didn't know what I meant by authorial intent. > > > Grey Wolf: > > >>I want to make this perfectly clear, because I have the feeling > > that people have been misunderstanding me: I don't like > > metathinking myself, especially against MAGIC DISHWASHER, which > > is based in internal evidence (and thus it is not Fair Play), but > >there is *nothing* wrong with metathinking per-se (and I hope > >I've never implied anything else).<< > > > > Eloise: > > If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's > > authorial intent matter one jot? > > > OTOH, would it be unfair for me to suggest that I disputed what I > > *think* is the whole basis of MD on the grounds that books, > > particularly adventure/mystery/thriller type books frequently > > depend on the coming together of all sorts of apparent > > coincidences and chains of events of the most improbable nature. > > It's just literary convention (and convenience) and does not imply > > any orchestrating hand in the background but that of the author. > > Pip: > One could say 'unfair', but mainly one could say 'it's completely > irrelevant'. Eloise: I must remember that argument! ;-) Pip: > > I suspect [I've said this before] that we're coming from completely > different theoretical backgrounds. The analysis of canon that > created the Dishwasher is probably closest in theory to a > Stanislavskian approach, if you want to use one of *my* technical > terms [grin]. > > > Eloise: At least you admit that you *have* a theoretical background. I thought that sort of stuff was just for highfalutin English prof types. ;-) So the adoption of a theoretical framework isn't intrinsically metathinking, then? Thank you. I now understand where you're coming from a lot better. I can see how that approach is if great value to the actors playing the parts of the Potterverse characters and also to the writers of Fan Fic. It is also, as Charis has pointed out, an approach many of us adopt ourseves - but not in isolation. George, Diana and the Sirius Apologist all approach canon by taking an inside view of the character concerned, but end up taking the view that the characters are acting honestly, at least on the emotional level. To start theorising based on the notion that the characters might be lying about their emotions (I'm thinking, naturally, of Snape, as always ;-) ) seems to me to be much more dangerous than taking them at face value. And of course, there is Pippin's point about JKR's view of Dumbledore as the epitome of goodness, which you presumably take as canon and which seems terribly compromised by the lengths of moral relativism to which MD drives him. Pip: > <>Dumbledore lives *within* the books. > And you can look at him from the outside. > Or you can try and analyse him from the inside. > > But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously. > > And that's why 'metathinking is not fair play'. You're asking me to > look in two directions simultaneously. > > And I go cross-eyed ;-) Eloise: Even if we concentrate on what is before us, we can still be informed by our peripheral vision. Unless we decide to adopt blinkers ;-) As Charis says, one of the strengths of this community is that mutually incompatible theories *can* live happily side by side. Take Diana and Banging. Now Diana is born precisely from trying to get inside the head of a character, treating him as a real person, trying understand his emotions and to work out his possible motivations. Big Bang, OTOH is a product of studying the nature of the narrative in the HP series and is thus, I presume metathinking(?) But I do not regard Big Bang's criticisms of Diana as unfair or...what's that word?... irrelevant. They are perfectly fair and perfectly relevant as the character that I like to think of and try to understand as a 'real' person is, in fact the creation of a writer and his words, actions, emotions and motivations are not, in reality, under his own control. Both approaches are valid and each may inform the other. Maybe Cindy's right and JKR *has* established a pattern whereby every major turning point in the story is accompanied by a Bang and I need to bear that in mind. OTOH, maybe George and Diana's assessment of Snape's character indicates that Bangs are not an *inevitable* accompaniment to *every* turning point. I originally got involved in this because of what I saw as a logical contradicion between MD's stated view of being a purely internal, canon-based theory and your willingness to embrace what I see as (external) authorial intent. I still see that contradiction, though I now understand why you do not. But I still have difficulty understanding how you are at the same time able to reconcile acknowledging that HP has an author and is therefore a piece of fictional writing, with the contention that its must be interpreted without reference to that fictional framework, as if its characters were real and had autonomous control of their own actions. I'd say *that's* not fair play. ;-) Though I suppose I've got it wrong again ;-) ~Eloise ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every time we look at it we see a different hue. (Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 15:33:17 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:33:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204153317.62303.qmail@web20007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47701 --- kiricat2001 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" > wrote: > I'm with Marina on this one. In the Shrieking > Shack, not only was > everyone at a high emotional pitch, but when Snape > makes his > entrance, he ties up Lupin, and threatens Black with > death, perhaps - > ("Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will") or > the Dementor's > Kiss. Snape may or may not have carried through on > his threats. But, > this is not setting a scene where Sirius will > suddenly feel the need > to apologize for the Prank, "Gee, sorry about that > werewolf thing > back in school - please don't call in the > Dementors." I'm not talking about just Snape, though. What about terrorizing the Fat Lady, or scaring Ron. Yes, he had other motives, but he did frighten them. Even to the point when Ron stood and said that Sirius'd have to go through him to get to Harry. The thing about Sirius is that he *still* doesn't seem to understand that his actions have (unintended) consequences. He doesn't think about all the people he hurts along the way. He just doesn't seem to care about anything but his own agenda; everyone and everything else can just go to hell. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From EilanofAlbion at gmx.net Wed Dec 4 15:29:10 2002 From: EilanofAlbion at gmx.net (Eilan) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:29:10 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47702 Hi, well, I'm new here ans stuff, but since you stated that you don't really like pure-introduction posts, I'll just jump into discussion, okay? > He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius > would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he > went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against > Wolf!Lupin. I think it was also stated in the books that werewolves could just be harmed by silver, wasn't it? Of course some curses would probably still show an effect. IMHO, everything involving the 'prank' probably happened really quick, so by the time Snapw would've thought of some curse that would have an effect, James had already done something to save him. That could also explain the grudge Snape has against James, some sort of 'You saved my life one second before I was doing it myself, so why should I thank you?'. > Sneaking around trying to get MWPP expelled is not as insignificant as > most people make it out to be. Getting expelled from Hogwarts means > that you never become a fully qualified wizard, so any good employment > opportunities evaporate. This is probably the case, after all Hagrid only got a job because Dumbledore offered him one. BTW, all of them could've been expelled for being out after curfew, especially Snape, since he didn't have a reason for being there (James, Peter and Sirius had one as they were sort of helping Remus). > "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," said Dumbledore quietly. > > I don't think Dumbledore saw it as attempted murder. I don't think he > agrees with Snape on this point at all and is reminding Snape that his > perspective on the Pr*nk hasn't changed with time. I see it differently. I think that Dumbledore sees it as a foolish prank that could've resulted in murder and that he doesn't like it that Sirius did it, bit that he has heard it at least a dozen times from Snape and grew tired of it, so he reminds Snape of the fact that he hasn't forgotten the last *10* times Snape has brought it up. Eilan From mrsbonsai at charter.net Wed Dec 4 16:01:33 2002 From: mrsbonsai at charter.net (jastrangfeld) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:01:33 -0000 Subject: hehehe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47703 Ok, I am just reading through lots of old posts because I was away for a bit. But I'm reading Grey Wolf's post right now about theories, and an idea popped into my head, and I don't think it's been proposed before. Ready? Ok. From cannon we know that Voldemort learned who his father was just because his mother named him after him. . . . but I do not believe it actually states that this is absolute truth. What if in fact, Filch were his father? And his mother named him after the nice man who took her to the hospital. Perhaps his mother had a huge blow out fight with Filch, and this is in part why he's so mean. Maybe he does or doesn't know that Voldie is his son. If he knows, maybe he's helping Dumledore with the fight secretly. In not revealing that he's his real father, then the whole potion that Voldemort made to bring himself back is inherently flawed unless that family is somehow releated to Filch. Anyone proove me wrong or add to this theory? Trying to think of a cute name, but all I can seem to come up with is FIVF. Filch is Voldemort's Father. I must say that as I was reading through Grey Wolf's post he was mentioning on the side something about how the books could say how it was all Filch behind it. And just happened to think through this to this point. Just a fun theory :) Poke away!! Julie :) From sgarfio at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 16:27:06 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:27:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley ages... In-Reply-To: <20021204031721.24217.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021204162706.71404.qmail@web21407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47704 Scheherazade wrote: > Ooh, I can tell this is gonna start a thread, but before we go off on > this tangent. PLEASE! tell me where the Weasley's birth order is stated! I > become more and more convinced daily that Charlie is the older son. Andrea replied quite definitively: > Sorry to disappoint you, hon, but COS says very clearly, "Bill was the > oldest Weasley brother. He and the next brother, Charlie, had already > left Hogwarts." ("At Flourish and Blotts", p.46 US paperback) Amazing how this group works - this problem occurred to me as well last night while I was rereading GoF. The one point in Scheherezade's original post that has not been addressed yet is that Bill mentioned not having seen Hogwarts for 5 years ("The Third Task", p. 535 UK PB: "'It's great being back here,' said Bill, looking around the chamber... 'Haven't seen this place for five years. Is that picture of the mad knight still around? Sir Cadogan?'") This is toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (June 24, 1995, to be exact), so assuming Bill is being exact here, he last saw Hogwarts in 1990. This is where I also said "Huh?" because he couldn't have been a student there 5 years ago if he's the oldest and Percy has already graduated, unless the older Weasley kids are much closer together than we think, and maybe Charlie stopped playing Quidditch before he graduated and therefore graduated less than 7 years before Ron started (okay, now I'm just confusing myself ). Now, notice he says he hasn't *seen* this place for 5 years. I extrapolated from the years Scheherezade gave and found that the 1989-90 school year that Bill is referring to would have been the year Gred and Forge started, so maybe he visited then. Bill would have been 22-ish, but maybe with all the bank holidays they have in the UK, he was able to take the time off, or he could have visited on Gringott's business (collecting the Stone, maybe? No, let's not start that again ). Couple this explanation with the ones others have provided for Ginny's exceptional memory, and the inconsistency conveniently dissolves. Also, it's entirely possible that Ginny remembers her family *talking* about Bill's years at Hogwarts, and has assembled these memories with her very tenuous real memories of those years to come up with what seems to her to be her own memories. To quote Grey Wolf, hope that helps. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From crussell at arkansas.net Wed Dec 4 16:44:43 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:44:43 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47705 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > > Having set up the antagonism between these two so nicely, and now > having them grudgingly acknowledge to each other that they are on the > same side, (even if Dumbledore had to practically knock their heads > together to get them to do so), don't you think JKR is planting the > seeds for some sort of close future interaction between the two? > > I agree that it was clearly shown that these two men will have to bury the hatchet-if only temporarily- to bring about the final defeat of Voldemort. After all, it has been said that war makes strange bedfellows-what could be stranger than Snape and Sirius working together? However, I do not see some touching reconciliation scene in the future between these two. IMO, that would be completely out of character. The antagonism between these two guys is the fuel that feeds the fire. Having them become all mushy-so to speak, IMO, just would not work. Work together- yes, I can see it. Actually, learn to respect and like each other-No Way. bugaloo37 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 16:52:57 2002 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:52:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47706 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bugaloo37" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > I agree that it was clearly shown that these two men will have to > bury the hatchet-if only temporarily- to bring about the final defeat > of Voldemort. After all, it has been said that war makes strange > bedfellows-what could be stranger than Snape and Sirius working > together? However, I do not see some touching reconciliation scene > in the future between these two. IMO, that would be completely out > of character. The antagonism between these two guys is the fuel that > feeds the fire. Having them become all mushy-so to speak, IMO, just > would not work. Work together- yes, I can see it. Actually, learn > to respect and like each other-No Way. > > bugaloo37 Hmmm, I disagree. Being all mushy would be out of character for both of them indeed. But through working together they may develop grudging respect for each other. I think it is possible or maybe I just want it to be. We still don't know so much about their time in school. We don't know everything about events leading to the Prank. I for once would like for them if not becoming friends (I agree with you that war can do strange things), at least make peace with each other. Alla From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 16:53:16 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:53:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about wizards and living.... References: <20021204045230.38008.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007f01c29bb5$a47349c0$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47707 From: "Andrea" > > Actually, Fred said that their house was "just outside" the village of > Ottery St. Catchpole, but it wasn't specified just how FAR outside that > was. me: couldn't have been to far as they had to walk from their home through the villiage to get to Stoatshead Hill where the Portkey was. Rob From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 16:56:51 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasley ages... In-Reply-To: <20021204162706.71404.qmail@web21407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021204165651.65483.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47708 --- Sherry Garfio wrote: >> The one point in Scheherezade's original post that has not been addressed yet is that Bill mentioned not having seen Hogwarts for 5 years ("The Third Task", p. 535 UK PB: "'It's great being back here,' said Bill, looking around the chamber... 'Haven't seen this place for five years. Is that picture of the mad knight still around? Sir Cadogan?'") This is toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (June 24, 1995, to be exact), so assuming Bill is being exact here, he last saw Hogwarts in 1990. This is where I also said "Huh?" because he couldn't have been a student there 5 years ago if he's the oldest and Percy has already graduated, unless the older Weasley kids are much closer together than we think, and maybe Charlie stopped playing Quidditch before he graduated and therefore graduated less than 7 years before Ron started (okay, now I'm just confusing myself ).<< This didn't confuse me at all, because after all, Bill was THERE without being a student THEN, so why couldn't he have visited before? We see in TMTMNBN that former students/relatives of students can come to Quidditch matches. Bill might've come for some kind of reunion, an Old Head Boys Conference, or just to visit his siblings. I never saw why this should indicate Bill had to have been a student at Hogwarts then. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 17:01:03 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:01:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: <007f01c29bb5$a47349c0$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> Message-ID: <20021204170103.83663.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47709 I said: >> Actually, Fred said that their house was "just outside" the village of Ottery St. Catchpole, but it wasn't specified just how FAR outside that was.<< Then Rob replied: >> couldn't have been to far as they had to walk from their home through the villiage to get to Stoatshead Hill where the Portkey was.<< Good point, Rob. My impression was that the Burrow was just on the outskirts of town, that ramshackle old house everyone knows about but nobody bothers going to, probably shielded just enough by trees and such that its odd shape isn't as noticeable. But showing it in the absolute middle of nowhere, as they did in TMTMNBN, is going TOO far, IMO. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Wed Dec 4 17:20:44 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:20:44 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Slashing the Fat Lady & Remorse In-Reply-To: <20021204153317.62303.qmail@web20007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47710 > From: Rebecca Stephens > > I'm not talking about just Snape, though. What about > terrorizing the Fat Lady, or scaring Ron. Yes, he had > other motives, but he did frighten them. Even to the > point when Ron stood and said that Sirius'd have to go > through him to get to Harry. > > The thing about Sirius is that he *still* doesn't seem > to understand that his actions have (unintended) > consequences. He doesn't think about all the people > he hurts along the way. He just doesn't seem to care > about anything but his own agenda; everyone and > everything else can just go to hell. Agreed. This came up in one of the FA threads recently, and it's been much on my mind. Ani (who lurks in here somewhere, I believe *gryn*) pointed out that Sirius' priorities are a bit skewed. At the end of PoA, he's *desperate* to get at Peter. Killing Peter is his first priority. He might have said that he broke out of prison to get Peter because he knew Peter has placed himself near Harry, but Sirius himself nearly strangles Harry in his attempt to get to Peter. Killing Peter is more important to him than protecting Harry. The sheer violence of his vindictiveness is scary, even if you can understand his motivations and sense of betrayal. Ashfae From mysmacek at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 17:15:43 2002 From: mysmacek at yahoo.com (mysmacek) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:15:43 -0000 Subject: On canon value (was Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47711 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > Eloise wrote: > > If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's > > authorial intent matter one jot? > > Internal evidence is the same thing as canon. JKR's word is *also* > canon. Thus, if JKR states that there is no MD, there is not: she's the > one that created the place, she's the one that has power to bring it > down. Which is not the same as metathinking, I insist. > > (On a tangent, there is certain "softness" to JKR's word which makes it > less "canon" than what is written in the books. If JKR suddenly > announces in an interview that Hagrid wasn't taken to Azkaban, but to > another prison, it would drive many people on the list mad, since it is > a fragant violation of hard canon. And, knowing us, we'd find a > plausible reason none of us would really believe but would use, for > sake of our sanity.) Hi, GreyWolf, I would even say that JKR's own words are NOT canon, unless written in her books :-)) After all, she might need to mislead us - I doubt that if someone had asked in online chat "I think that Snape is a vampire and a brother to Lily Evans and that Dumbledore is in fact EVIL...." and if that had been true, that she would give back anything but misleading (read "untrue") answers. IMHO the canon value of various sources is like this: 1) the four (so far) books 2) JKR's own words, unless suiting her otherwise (big gap) 3) FBAWTFT, QTA (enormous gap) 4) the movies, action figures, etc :-) >From point 3, including, the sources are at most non-contradicting main plots - not necessarily holding the lesser ones. Mysmacek From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 17:40:55 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:40:55 -0000 Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47712 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Summer *" wrote: > This may seem like an odd question, but where do Wizards live? > >I mean, do they live side by side with Muggles, and the Muggles never > know it, or do they have their own little Wizard communities? I > mean, I guess Muggle born wizards live with other Muggles, such as > Hermione does, but what about the rest? I can't really see the > Malfoy's living next door to muggles... This may have been addressed > in the books, but it has been a while since I've read them! Thanks! > > Summer > bboy_mn comments: There is only one all magic village in the UK and that is Hogsmeade. That implies to me that there are other villages that are mixed, although, I'm sure that wizards living in various villages keep to themselves. As far as the Burrow, it is within easy walking distance of the Village of Otter St. Catchpole. The Diggorys also live within walking distance of Otter St. Catchpole, although it is a very long walk; a few hours. When they all meet on Stoad Hill, Arthur asks Mr. Diggory about another family who apparently left for the Quiditch World Cup weeks before. So obiously those threee families live in that area. I have always assumed that the Burrow had basic enchantments like Apathy Charms so muggles would ignore it. The Weasley's have been living at the Burrow for many years, and it doesn't appear as if anyone from the town even knows they are there. Also, that land that isn't owned by the Weasley and isn't wooded land, is farm land. So the Apathy Charm has to be strong enough that the farmer ignores them when he is out working his fields. Since there is Diagon Alley within the boudaries of London, I have to assume that within the boudaries of other major cities, there is a small (smaller that Diagon Alley) magic village whick like Diagon Alley is hidden from muggles. We know that Harry's parents lived in Godric's Hollow, since there is only one all magic village and this isn't it; it is either a mixed muggle/magic village or it is a magic neighborhood hidden in another city. (My vote is that it is hidden in the sunny seaside resort of Cardiff just west of Bristol, but I can't prove it). I can also see large (somewhat large) muggle neighborhoods in London that have gradually over time changed into predominantly magic neighborhoods. Much the way you see certain neighborhoods take on an ethnic character like 'little Italy', Chinatown, etc... Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 17:52:12 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:52:12 -0000 Subject: Theories Wanted - That Crazy Clock. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47713 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "The Real Makarni" wrote: > wrote: > > ...edited... > Daniel.Brent comments & Pat repsonds" > > 2)The Weasley's have a clock that tells each of them where > > each member of the family is, home, work etc... Why then, during > > Harry and Ron's adventures with the spiders, would the clock for > > Ron not appear on "mortal peril"? ...edited... > > > Another possibility- the clock wasn't mentioned until Book 4. It is > possible that the Weasley's bought it *after* the CoS incident. > ...edited... > Roo bboy_mn: That crazy clock has to be the bane of Mrs. Weasley's existance. I'm sure it's a beautiful clock and it seemed like a great idea when they bought it, but with their kids, kids who are constantly in trouble, it has to drive Mrs. Weasley insane. Half a dozen times a year, Ron's hand and by implication Harry are in Mortal Danger which leaves Mrs. Weasley pacing the floor in a state of panic. Before the fact, I'm sure 'home', 'travel', 'work', and even 'mortal peril' seemed like good things to know, but I'll bet very soon Mrs. Weasley cursed the day they ever bought it. Sometimes, it's better not to know. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 18:10:09 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:10:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204181009.84856.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47714 --- bboy_mn wrote: > I have always assumed that the Burrow had basic enchantments like > Apathy Charms so muggles would ignore it. The Weasley's have been > living at the Burrow for many years, and it doesn't appear as if > anyone from the town even knows they are there. Also, that land that > isn't owned by the Weasley and isn't wooded land, is farm land. So the > Apathy Charm has to be strong enough that the farmer ignores them when > he is out working his fields. I assume you're talking about the land they played Quidditch on, since you weren't very specific but I can't figure out what else you would've meant. :) The land IS wooded and IS owned by the Weasleys -- "Harry, Ron, Fred, and George were planning to go up the hill to a small paddock the Weasleys owned. It was surrounded by trees that blocked it from view of the village below..." ("At Flourish and Blotts", COS p.45, American paperback) A paddock is just a fenced-in pasture, essentially, not strictly farmland, and was surrounded by trees. I agree with you about the Apathy Charm, though. Probably standard issue for a wizarding residence. :) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sgarfio at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 18:18:47 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:18:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spy/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204181847.61217.qmail@web21401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47715 Porphyria provided us with the following canon (thanks - I wasn't sure if I was suffering from movie tainting): > "But Snape tried to kill me!" > > "No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger > accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at > that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few > seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have managed it > before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse, trying to > save you." > > > He goes on to remark about how Snape was also trying to protect Harry > by refereeing the next Quidditch match. So yes, QuirrelMort knows that Snape was protecting Harry from him. But does that preclude Snape from going back to spying for Dumbledore (in the more obvious sense of posing as a DE)? I say it doesn't. The very nature of "double agents" makes their loyalties difficult to pin down. Is Snape spying on Dumbledore for Voldemort, or is he spying on Voldemort for Dumbledore? Frankly, we don't know, but Dumbledore believes (or claims to believe) the latter. I think that all of the issues that have been brought up regarding Voldemort's acceptance of Snape can be explained away by Snape with the double-agent role. Many DEs stayed out of Azkaban by providing a convenient explanation - Imperius or whatever. Some of these claimed to do this for Voldemort's benefit: they would be more use to him if they were free. Snape could easily use the same argument about his defense. He convinced the old fool Dumbledore that he was spying on Voldemort (and it's entirely possible that, during VoldeWar I, Snape had Voldemort convinced that he was spying for *him*). He tried to stop Quirrell because he didn't know he was working for Voldemort, and Snape also wanted the Stone for Voldemort and saw Quirrell as an obstacle to this plan. He protected Harry (this is the one I haven't seen explained) because he feared that the Stone was too well protected, and he (Snape, the Potions Master) had a backup plan that required Harry to be alive: the very potion Voldemort ended up using! I don't know if I believe that going back to the double agent role is the task Dumbledore sends Snape on, but I don't think he is precluded from doing so by his "cover story" or by his behaviour toward Quirrell. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Dec 4 18:20:17 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:20:17 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about wizards and living.... Message-ID: <1c1.28417a6.2b1fa161@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47716 Andrea: > Good point, Rob. My impression was that the Burrow was just on the > outskirts of town, that ramshackle old house everyone knows about but > nobody bothers going to, probably shielded just enough by trees and such > that its odd shape isn't as noticeable. But showing it in the absolute > middle of nowhere, as they did in TMTMNBN, is going TOO far, IMO. I hestitate to answer this as it may be deemed to movie-related, but honestly, I don't think we saw *very* wide surroundings and it was *exactly* the kind of setting I imagined and not at all unlikely to be very close to an English Muggle village. Lots of English farms and houses are *just outside* villages, but quite isolated in themselves. I imagine it's up a narrow lane. We have lots of very narrow, twisty country lanes with high banks on either sides and trees, ones you just wouldn't go up unless you had a reason to. Oh and Jacqui, I'm not being unkind, but I did have to chuckle at the idea of Ron saying he lived in the boonies! Do you realise just how American that is? Yes, the word boondogs is not unknown over here (though I've never heard a child say it and we'd be more likely to talk about living in the sticks, or in the back of beyond, or whatever), but he'd be as unlikely to say 'boonies' as he would be to say 'Mom'. Oh, I just remembered, in the US editions they *do* say 'Mom'. Believe me, he wouldn't! Bboy_mn: >I can also see large (somewhat large) muggle neighborhoods in London >that have gradually over time changed into predominantly magic >neighborhoods. Much the way you see certain neighborhoods take on an >ethnic character like 'little Italy', Chinatown, etc... Ooh...I wonder where they are? I'll have to keep a look out next time I'm in town. I'm afraid I haven't noticed any of them yet. Though I wouldn't be surprised in Glastonbury (in Somerset) didn't have a pretty big magical community. There are certainly plenty of oddly attired people wandering round there who could easily be witches/wizards in disguise. ;-) In fact I'm sure that some of them *are* witches (though not the HP kind) - it's that sort of place. Eloise (Just jealous because she knows she can't get away with dressing like a hippie or dying her hair a fetching shade of blue.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM Wed Dec 4 18:34:35 2002 From: MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM (mitchbailey82) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:34:35 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47717 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote:> > Consider the following: > > When Snape entered Hogwarts, he knew more curses than most 7th years. > He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius > would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he > went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against > Wolf!Lupin. From his perspective, he wasn't sending anyone to his > death. Now me: This is the bit that really gets me about the prank. Sirius sends a person that is known to be good at curses after/to one of his friends Lupin, I know that it has been said that this could have resulted in Lupin becoming a murderer or responsible for turning someone into a werewolf - however I have always thought that Lupin was in as much danger from Snape as Snape is from him in this prank. If things had got bad Snape could have used one of these curses and this could have lead to injury or death to Lupin. I know that the danger that the prank put Snape in was bad and wrong of Sirius - but they didn't like each other ( not an excuse but...) Know Lupin is supposed to be Sirius' friend and not does the prank expose Lupins truth to Snape , but it puts him in danger or unintentionally becoming a murderer or inflicting the werewolf curse on someone, and it also puts him in physical danger too - its kinda like with friends like these who need enemies? Michelle From crussell at arkansas.net Wed Dec 4 18:58:51 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:58:51 -0000 Subject: On canon value (was Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47718 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mysmacek" wrote: > > I would even say that JKR's own words are NOT canon, unless written in > her books :-)) > There have been times-very few, I might add-when JKR has indeed given out information-not found in the books- which I believe can be taken for fact- or canon, so to speak. For instance, when she stated that Lily Potter's maiden name was Evans and that she was in Gryffindor. IMO, there is no reason to assume that these facts were an attempt to mislead anybody. On the other hand, JKR can definitely be quite vague on certain subjects concerning the series. So I guess I am saying that I agree with you to a certain extent. My theory is this: when JKR makes comments concerning minor points such as maiden names, I believe you can take her completely at her word - when she comments about major points such as who will live and who will die or who is good and who is evil- I believe you should be prepared for some heavy-duty "gilding of the lily"- in other words, misleading statements. bugaloo37 From mpachuta at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 18:56:50 2002 From: mpachuta at hotmail.com (Mike Pachuta) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:56:50 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Fidelius Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47719 The Fidelius Charm is an incredibly "complex charm involving the concealment of a secret within a single living soul." (Professor Flitwick, POA) My first thought upon reading the passage above was that James and Lily Potter were the ones who performed the Fidelius Charm on themselves and Pettigrew. However, now I am beginning to wonder... With the tremendous complexities of this charm, is it possible that someone else performed the charm on them - or with them? Could Dumbledore have been involved? If Dumbledore was involved, he would have realized what went wrong the moment it went wrong - thus the possible beginnings of what could be MAGIC DISHWASHER... Any thoughts? Mike, who apologizes if this has been brought up before, but is new in these parts. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From mo.hue at web.de Wed Dec 4 18:57:52 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:57:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47720 On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 23:02:18 -0000, "nyndwarrego" wrote: >Monika - BRAVO! Um, thanks. Okay, I just felt like saying thanks, even if it is off topic. >The expression of PTSD fluctuates, and onset can be many years after >the original trauma. I would agree that it is an often over-used >diagnosis, but no less real for that. > >I see it often in police or emergency workers - they appear to deal >well enough with events at the time, but it catches up with them >months or even years later. I have read at least one or two interesting articles dealing with vicarious trauma, and apparently it not only happens to police, emergency workers or fire fighters, but also to psychologists, as weird as this may sound. There have been studies about this. Well, so much for Sirius having to be a saint to be traumatized by the deaths of his friends. I have been asked off list for references, and I apologize for not including at least the links to two of the most useful websites about PTSD you can find on the web in my last post. So, for anyone interested in reading further, I highly recommend the following two sites: The National Center for PTSD http://www.ncptsd.org David Baldwin's Trauma Pages: http://www.trauma-pages.com On both sites you'll find loads of useful information as well as a huge collection of full text articles. On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:49:23 -0800 (PST), Rebecca Stephens wrote: [still on the subject of slashing the Fat Lady:] >I would (if possible without sending him back to >Azkaban) make Sirius serve some kind of punishment for >what he did. I was thinking of just ignoring this, but then decided against it, I guess I just have to make a comment here. Do you really think Sirius should be punished again after just serving twelve years in Azkaban for something he did *not* do? The wizarding society has ostracized him, he lived through twelve years of torture and remorse (yes, remorse for something he *thought* he had done), and then you want to punish him again for his reaction to what *society* has done to *him*? I'm speechless again, and this doesn't happen *this* often to me. The man needs a psychiatrist, but certainly not more punishment. >And I would feel much better about >Sirius if he were to have remorse for any of his >actions that terrified or harmed people. But he >doesn't. And no one cares. And that's why I dislike >him most; because no character (other than Snape) >holds him in the least accountable for the >cruel/thoughtless actions he did commit. Well, other people have already said that we don't know what exactly lead to that "prank", and I would like to add that I also cannot see Snape as an innocent victim here. He is at least as responsible for it as the others involved. As for Sirius not showing any remorse for it in the Shrieking Shack: it would have been utterly ridiculous in this situation, and his mental state certainly didn't allow it. And, as someone else has pointed out, Snape wouldn't have accepted it anyway. And may I ask what other "cruel" actions he doesn't have any remorse for? The incident with Ron's leg was clearly an accident, and it *did* bother him. I can certainly not make you like him, but I have to point out that you don't seem to care in the least about what has been done to *Sirius* and what turned him into an emotional wreck in the first place (displaying the appropriate behaviour for someone like this). Monika From fun_n_games_2663 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 17:37:28 2002 From: fun_n_games_2663 at yahoo.com (fun_n_games_2663) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:37:28 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER--Some calming thoughts In-Reply-To: <124.1aeb3379.2b1f770f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47721 I'm not really responding to any particular post on this subject. All posters have valid points, and I think I can find agreement among them if you will let me try. MD supporters have based their theory on what has gone on in the books. The actions of the characters, how they speak, how they act, either support or do not contradict the theory. That's what makes it a good theory! They are asking those who oppose the theory to find canon evidence--what the characters say or do--to oppose the theory, and they are right in doing so. To say that MD doesn't work because JKR wouldn't do such a thing or that's not how books in this genre go begs the question of whether the books support the theory. On the other hand, I whole heartedly agree with MD detractors that JKR would not set up Dumbledore as a coniver. My belief that she would not do this, however, takes nothing away from the MD theory. One of our problems in this debate is that we are waiting (ever so long!)for the final three books. When we postulate about what will happen in those books, we can go about it either from the inside out or the outside in. We can say "here is what Dumbledore has done in the past, so I believe this is what he will do in the future." A different argument (which does not detract from the first) is that "these books are from this type of genre or JKR has this personality, therefore I believe that this will happen." The first argument (inside out) should be debated from the inside out ("but Dumbledore did this as well, so your theory doesn't wash"). The second argument (outside in) should be debated from outside in (but sometimes books of this genre do this, so you are wrong"). I really think I'm going to become known as the guy who keeps using Lord of the Rings analogies, but I can't help it. My son and I are doing LOTR right now. Anyway, here is the analogy. Tolkein vehemently denied that LOTR was an allegory. He said he hated them. Nevertheless, readers of LOTR can find all kinds of internal and external evidence that the story is an allegory for the World Wars. A reader can postulate on the allegory based upon the internal evidence, and that postulation will not be refuted by the mere statement that Tolkein hated allegories. If the book shows an allegory, it's there whether Tolkein wanted it or not. If reader wants to defend Tokein's hatred of allegories, he will have to go to the books to prove the allegory isn't there. In sum, I think MD is an elegant theory based on the internal evidence of the books,which I can't fight except for coming up with a better theory (see my counselor Dumbledore theory)or evidence from the books that prove the spy war is not occurring (I haven't found any of this) even though I can also say it won't be borne out because I don't believe JKR will go there. See? We *can* all get along! Russ--fun_n_games From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Dec 4 19:28:07 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:28:07 -0000 Subject: hehehe / The Fidelius Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47722 Julie wrote: > Ok. From cannon we know that Voldemort learned who his father was > just because his mother named him after him. . . . but I do not > believe it actually states that this is absolute truth. > > What if in fact, Filch were his father? And his mother named him > after the nice man who took her to the hospital. Perhaps his mother > had a huge blow out fight with Filch, and this is in part why he's so > mean. Maybe he does or doesn't know that Voldie is his son. If he > knows, maybe he's helping Dumledore with the fight secretly. In not > revealing that he's his real father, then the whole potion that > Voldemort made to bring himself back is inherently flawed unless that > family is somehow releated to Filch. > > Anyone proove me wrong or add to this theory? > > Julie :) The only problem with this theory is that Voldemort is 65 years old, which would make Filch at the very least 75, and probably 80+, and he doesn't look that old. Of course, I am assuming that Filch, as a squib (aka muggle) doesn't have an expanded lifespan. If one of the differences between muggles and squibs is that the latter do have the extended lifespan, then the theory is marginally workable, especially because how Voldemort manages to learn all those things about his fmily, when his mother is dead at childbirth and his father doesn't want to have anything to do with him is still in the air, and thus could've been a tale told to young Tom and spin out of cloth by the orphanage caretakers. Mike wrote: > My first thought upon reading the passage above was that James and > Lily Potter were the ones who performed the Fidelius Charm on > themselves and Pettigrew. However, now I am beginning to wonder... > > With the tremendous complexities of this charm, is it possible that > someone else performed the charm on them - or with them? Could > Dumbledore have been involved? > Mike We don't really know how many people takes to make a Fidelius charm, nor really any of the details at all, so there is no canon in favour or against that proposition. However, anyone involved would necesarily have to know some especifics about the spell, like *who had been selected as secret keeper*. Since the entire purpose of the spell is to hide things, I don't think you would have to use more than the absolute minimun of people. And of course, if there were other people apart from Peter and the Potters, where were they when Sirius was framed? As I said earlier, I can't believe that there could be people involved that wouldn't know who the real secret keeper is, and if they were friends of the potters, they would've protested the MoM's decision to send Sirius to Azkaban. This includes especifically Dumbledore, who, by his own words, either didn't know who the secret keeper was, since he said that it was Sirius, or rather he is an evil person and gave false evidence of Sirius involvement, which I very much doubt. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Dec 4 19:43:28 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:43:28 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47723 clicketykeys wrote: > I find it curious that we're not supposed to use metathinking in > dealing with Pip's MD theory, when waaay back in post 39662 the first > point made after the claim that the Voldemort-Potter war is a modern > war fought undercover style: > > > Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United' > > Kingdom was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of > > my and JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her > > fictional civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the > > news every day. > > Now, unless someone is going to claim that Voldemort has been keeping > an eye on mundane politics for the past however long and is basing > his actions on what he learned there, this is an example of outside > information being used to support MD, back at the very beginning. I > am not claiming that this is a central pillar of support or anything, > merely citing it as an example. > > CK > clicketykeys Interestingly, your example is just that: *an* example. Pip used it to help the readers get into position. She does not claim that Voldemort is involved with the IRA, nor that their goals are similar, nor any other similarity. Only that JKR might have drawn from her own experience to create that war, instead of the traditional armies style warfare. IIRC, no other mention is made of that similarity, and the theory is in no way based upon that fact, except that most of our propositions on how to fight that kind of war probably come from the same place, or very similar ones. Also, I'd like to make clear that it is not metathinking. Metathinking would involve introducing the idea of a terrorist war with a purpose above the reality of the characters in the book - that is, if JKR was trying to make a point with it, for example, that IRA methods are wrong. Which we have never stated in any way, because it has nothing to do with the theory: our reality does not influence what is going on inside the books - or at least it shouldn't. And before someone jumps at us using our own weapons and says "But if MD is rigth, that is exactly what is happening", I have to make two points 1) Maybe it is what is in JKR's mind, but as long as she makes a coherent reality that can be explained without taking into account that that reality exist within a book, MD won't pronounce itself one way or the other - it is irrelevant one way or the other. 2) It is not true, anyway. So far, there is very little indication of how the war was carried out, and the information we have fits *all* terrorism wars in history, not just the latest one in the UK. [For those interested, the first recorded terrorist war I know of can be traced back to Roman times, where the Roman invasion/colonization of the Iberian peninsula stopped when they reached the Vasque mountains. It seems that the people there, instead of facing the armies, just scurried around, breaking into their camps and killing soldiers and officials, and setting ambushes to the food transports. The Romans decided not to invade for several centuries (mainly because they didn't find any advantage). That method of fighting (known as guerrilla warfare) can quickly degenerate into terrorism, and normally does (in fact, the difference between them is blurred).] Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Audra1976 at aol.com Wed Dec 4 19:46:40 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:46:40 EST Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse Message-ID: <1c9.29207d5.2b1fb5a0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47724 In a message dated 12/3/02 10:04:47 PM, dicentra at xmission.com writes: << When Snape entered Hogwarts, he knew more curses than most 7th years. He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against Wolf!Lupin. >> If this was truly Sirius's belief, then the situation parallels Snape and the other professors daring Lockheart to go into the Chamber of Secrets. They at least doubted, if not totally disbelieved, Lockheart's claims to greatness, and were basically saying, "Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is." Snape probably talked a good game about The Dark Arts in his school days. How else would someone know that he knew more curses than a seventh year unless Snape told them? Sirius might have thought it would shut Snape up if everyone knew that he pissed himself when he was confronted with a real werewolf. I'm not much of a Sirius Apologist when it comes to The Prank because I like Snape to much, but if we were to give Sirius the benefit of the doubt... Sirius would have had to have made two assumptions: 1. Werewolf!Lupin was "tamed" enough by the other Marauders interventions that he wouldn't have actually killed Snape (IIRC, Lupin says something about being able to keep control more and more in his werewolf form after the Animagi!Marauders started keeping him company). AND 2. Snape did not know enough about DADA to actually hurt or kill Lupin. It's pretty much of a gamble, but otherwise, Sirius just didn't comprehend (was he that stupid?) or care (was he that callous?) what happened to Snape, or his friend, Lupin. Audra From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 19:57:06 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:57:06 -0000 Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: <20021204181009.84856.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47725 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrea wrote: > --- bboy_mn wrote: > > > I have always assumed that the Burrow had basic enchantments like > > Apathy Charms so muggles would ignore it. The Weasley's have been > > living at the Burrow for many years, and it doesn't appear as if > > anyone from the town even knows they are there. Also, that land > > that isn't owned by the Weasley and isn't wooded land, is farm > > land. So the Apathy Charm has to be strong enough that the farmer > > ignores them when he is out working his fields. > > I assume you're talking about the land they played Quidditch on, > since you weren't very specific but I can't figure out what else > you would've meant. :) > > ...edited... > > Andrea bboy_mn responds: Actually, no, I wasn't talking specifically about the paddock although the paddock was included in what I was refering too. The Weasleys live on what we here in the heartland refer to as an acreage. An acreage is the plot of land upon which a farmhouse, it's associated building, and the surrounding woods sits. The Weasley's land consists of the home and out-buildings area, a pond, a clearing between the pond and the paddock, and the paddock which is surrounded by trees and also contains an orchard (apple trees). When they threw the gnomes over the hedge, they threw them into a another clearing which I took to be surrounding farm fields. I think the Weasleye's house and out-buildings are blocked from view of the main road by surrounding trees. However, there has to be a driveway leading up to the house (the taxis used it), and in a small community it would be hard for people to ignore that driveway. If nothing else, the local kids would explore is as a possible place to park and drink. Next, in a small rural area like this, any land that isn't houses or woods is farmland; either fields or grazing land which means that sooner or later the farmer is going to be out in his field and will be able to see the Weasleys and their house. Also, since the Weasleys are somewhat specific about what land they do and don't own, we must assume they bought the land from the farmer who owns the surrounding fields. Although, it is more likely that they bought it from the farmers grandfather or great-grandfather. This would help account for the current farmer not knowing that they are there. Oddly, I can picture the farmer driving his tractor up the Weasley's driveway, past their house, and out into the field and never giving their house a second (or even a first) glance. As the farmers passes by, the Weasley brothers are bored with it all, Mrs. Weasley is apprehensive, and Mr. Weasley is incredably fastinated by this marvelous contraption the farmer is driving and has the uncontrollable urge to go over and talk to the farmer about it; and of course, the farmer is oblivious. Since they must be careful not to fly above the trees in the paddock, there must be some limits to the Apathy (or whatever) Charm. Maybe it only takes effect when people get close. So people driving down the road would be uneffected until the got to the driveway, at which time they would completely ignore it. By the time they were out of range they would be well past the Weasley's driveway. Just a few thoughts. Actually, the nature and history of the Weasley farmstead/acreage is tied into a story I am writing, so I have given it some thought. bboy_mn From alicit at aol.com Wed Dec 4 19:58:59 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:58:59 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley ages... Message-ID: <132.1803deac.2b1fb883@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47726 In a message dated 12/3/2002 10:18:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, ra_1013 at yahoo.com writes: > Sorry to disappoint you, hon, but COS says very clearly, "Bill was the > oldest Weasley brother. He and the next brother, Charlie, had already > left Hogwarts." ("At Flourish and Blotts", p.46 US paperback) > *Scheherazadeooks it up in CoS, but it is the wrong edition, she swears, then figures out that it is on page 52* Ahh! you're right! Oh good! Don't worry, I'm not disappointed, just no longer crazy. Oh, and I apologise for not trusting what everyone says, but I've just come from a fandom-which-shall-remain-nameless, and I quickly found out that something that is stated as 'fact' on practically all sites is, many times, not. -scheherazade, stepping out of the straightjacket [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 20:22:04 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:22:04 -0000 Subject: Thoughts? Beast and Disillusionment Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47727 bboy_mn wonders: I was recently reading 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'(pg ixi) and came across a 'Disillusionment Charms'. A charm you place on a magical creature to keep muggles from spotting it. Maybe I'm being to literal, but 'disillution' means free or deprived of all illusion or being DISenchanted. Of course, disenchanted means free from illusion or false belief; undeceive. So, isn't that backwards? Shouldn't it be an Illusionemnt Charm or an Anti-Disillusionment Charm, meaning the placement of illusion, false beliefs, and enchantments, or acting against the lose or removal of illusion and/or false belief? This popped into my head because we were discussing the charms that might be placed around the Burrow to keep muggles from noticing it. Any thoughts? bboy_mn From alicit at aol.com Wed Dec 4 20:32:36 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:32:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco to the Light Side? Message-ID: <1c3.284d25c.2b1fc064@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47728 In a message dated 12/3/2002 9:35:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, rvotaw at i-55.com writes: > I know this may sound horrid, but I don't want Draco to die a "hero's > death." I don't necessarily *want* him to die, but it may happen. If it > does, I think it may be more of a, what's the word, casualty? No. Martyr? > No. Anyway, can't find the right word. Something like Voldemort > killing/torturing him when he gets in a mood and Lucius standing idly by. > Able, but not willing to save him. What's the word for that? Tragic Hero. Like Othello, he learns the truth about his actions, then dies. But I doubt he'd kill himself like Othello did. I could see something like that. It would be true to his character and his interactions with his father. On that note: grat post, Chthonia! I'm right on with you in this interpretation of Lucius' and Draco's upbringings ^_^v -Scheherazade, who is off to pontificate about birth order of Weasleys, now that she has it all straightened out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Wed Dec 4 19:28:38 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:28:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spy/Snape Message-ID: <1c8.2927602.2b1fb166@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47729 I like the spy/Snape theory as well. he even has an excuse for not reporting, if it's true that you can't apparate/disapparate from Hogwarts. and he can return with information for LV as well, telling him about Crouch jr's fate and that Harry's story is being rejected by Fudge and the MoM. I also have a comment about one of the concluding bits of PoA. Just after Black's escape, Snape rushes in, in a perfect frenzy, screaming and spitting before rushing out again. Rereading that scene after reading GoF, I wondered about it. Now, I suspect that most, if not all of her teachers knew about Hermione's use of the Time-Turner, and that Snape, therefore, must have. So he would have been able to make a good guess as to how the escape had been managed, especially if he knew Buckbeak had also escaped. I think he was laughing his...anatomy...off. Cheryl, new to the list... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 20:07:45 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:07:45 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47730 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > clicketykeys wrote: > > I find it curious that we're not supposed to use metathinking in > > dealing with Pip's MD theory, when waaay back in post 39662 the first > > point made after the claim that the Voldemort-Potter war is a modern > > war fought undercover style: > > > > > Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United' > > > Kingdom was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of > > my and JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her > > > fictional civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the > > > news every day. > > > > Now, unless someone is going to claim that Voldemort has been keeping > > an eye on mundane politics for the past however long and is basing > > his actions on what he learned there, this is an example of outside > > information being used to support MD, back at the very beginning. I > > am not claiming that this is a central pillar of support or anything, > > merely citing it as an example. > > > Interestingly, your example is just that: *an* example. Pip used it to > help the readers get into position. She does not claim that Voldemort > is involved with the IRA, nor that their goals are similar, nor any > other similarity. Only that JKR might have drawn from her own > experience to create that war, instead of the traditional armies style > warfare. Right. This is the first point made in support of the assumption that the V/P war is that type of war. MD is /founded/ on that assumption. > IIRC, no other mention is made of that similarity, and the > theory is in no way based upon that fact, except that most of our > propositions on how to fight that kind of war probably come from the > same place, or very similar ones. Okay... I thought that MD was based on the idea that the Voldemort war is an undercover/terrorist war, and that based on /that/ we can draw conclusions about the reasons for actions taken by the characters involved in the war. That's certainly the way it's presented in Pip's original post. > > Also, I'd like to make clear that it is not metathinking. Metathinking > would involve introducing the idea of a terrorist war with a purpose > above the reality of the characters in the book - that is, if JKR was > trying to make a point with it, for example, that IRA methods are > wrong. Which we have never stated in any way, because it has nothing to > do with the theory: our reality does not influence what is going on > inside the books - or at least it shouldn't. > Um. No. Metathinking is giving an out-of-book reason for in-book events. It would involve saying that we can conclude that the Voldemort war (in- book event) is a terrorist war based on the entirely out-of-book idea that Rowling is familiar with that type of political interplay. So, yes, this is metathinking. Mind you, I have no /problem/ with that, because I look at MD as a 'perspective' rather than a 'theory' that can be proven or disproven. MD is a conundrum - a way of asking, can we deduce the motivations for the actions of the characters in the books based /solely/ on information gleaned from the books? If I try to do otherwise, I get confused. ;) CK clicketykeys From Audra1976 at aol.com Wed Dec 4 20:56:38 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:56:38 EST Subject: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) Message-ID: <90.300cfb41.2b1fc606@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47731 In a message dated 12/2/02 12:31:36 PM, greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes: << I consulted a doctor about it the last time this came up on the list and I participated (almost a year ago, IIRC), and he told me that truth-telling serums (like sodium pentothal) are indeed efective. Why they aren't regularly used, I haven't the faintiest idea >> Me: I don't know what your doctor meant by "effective." I've done Graduate studies in Pharmacology and Pharmaceutics and we were taught that Sodium Pentothal does not force a person to tell the truth against their will. It's only a short acting sedative. It will produce unconsciousness, coma, or death in large enough dosages (it's the first of the series of drugs used for lethal injections in the U.S.), but in a small dosage it only relaxes a person (slows heart rate, relieves tension, depresses the nervous system). The drug was synthesized in the 1930s, and it first was proported as a "truth serum" shortly after because psychiatrist used it to relax a patient and d ecrease their inhibitions before hypnotherapy. During the hypnotherapy, the patient could communicate memories and thoughts easily. However in hypnotherapy, and/or just under the influence of Sodium Pentothal, although the person is less inhibited, they do not lose self-control. If asked a question they do not *want* to answer truthfully, they can still lie. Occasionly the person may be confused under the influence of the drug and blurt something out that they wouldn't normally say, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily the truth. I don't know much about the legalities, but I believe this is the reason why Sodium Pentothal and other such "truth serums" are not used on criminal suspects--not because a person could incrimate themselves as other people have suggested. They use polygraphs, don't they? And polygraphs are much more effective than Sodium Pentothal in determining the truth. Also Sodium Pentothal is invasive. Drugging suspects may fall under "cruel and unusal punishment." I don't know for sure. Now I have no idea how JKR's "Veritaserum" differs from Sodium Pentothal. Would Barty Crouch have told everything anyway? I don't remember him saying anything that would have hurt him and his cause too much. The things he revealed he did were done and it was too late to do anything about it. He was caught red-handed impersonating Moody, so he couldn't very well have feigned innocence again. So we really don't have any proof that Veritaserum forces someone to tell the truth against their will either. Audra From melclaros at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 21:16:11 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:16:11 -0000 Subject: Thoughts? Beast and Disillusionment Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47732 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" wrote: > bboy_mn wonders: > > I was recently reading 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'(pg > ixi) and came across a 'Disillusionment Charms'. A charm you place on > a magical creature to keep muggles from spotting it. > > Maybe I'm being to literal, but 'disillution' means free or deprived > of all illusion or being DISenchanted. Of course, disenchanted means > free from illusion or false belief; undeceive. > > So, isn't that backwards? Shouldn't it be an Illusionemnt Charm or an > Anti-Disillusionment Charm, meaning the placement of illusion, false > beliefs, and enchantments, or acting against the lose or removal of > illusion and/or false belief? > > This popped into my head because we were discussing the charms that > might be placed around the Burrow to keep muggles from noticing it. > > Any thoughts? > Well it wouldn't be the only one--backward spell, that is. This is going to come awful close to being a "one liner" but "ENERVATE" as a spell for re-animating an unconcious person is also backwards. Ennervat, according to Websters means "1:to lessen the vitality or strengh of 2: to reduce the mental or moral vigor of." Melpomene From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 4 21:51:45 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:51:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: <1c9.29207d5.2b1fb5a0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47733 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Audra1976 at a... wrote: > Sirius would have had to have made two assumptions: > > 1. Werewolf!Lupin was "tamed" enough by the other Marauders interventions that he wouldn't have actually killed Snape (IIRC, Lupin says something about being able to keep control more and more in his werewolf form after the Animagi!Marauders started keeping him company). > > AND > > 2. Snape did not know enough about DADA to actually hurt or kill Lupin. > > It's pretty much of a gamble, but otherwise, Sirius just didn't comprehend (was he that stupid?) or care (was he that callous?) what happened to Snape, or his friend, Lupin. << Or perhaps the reason we can't find a motive that makes sense is because once again Sirius is taking the rap for someone else...ever so evil Lupin, anyone? Could it possibly be that Lupin engineered the whole thing, from Sirius' "amusing" revelation to Snape's rescue by James? What if the real point was not to ridicule Snape or kill him but to keep him from further spying on the Willow and enlist authority to stop Snape from revealing Lupin's secret? Lupin certainly had the most to lose if the Marauders had to give up their monthly activities for fear of getting caught. Pippin From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 21:55:40 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:55:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47734 Dicentra wrote: > This apology issue comes up from time to time, and it really > perplexes me, especially in the case of the Pr*nk. We *so* > don't know what happened, especially in the aftermath thereof, that > we can't really go around saying that "Sirius should apologize to > Snape" or "Snape became disillusioned with Dumbledore when he > didn't expel Sirius." Now me: I completely agree. I think there's far more that we have to learn about the Prank. It just seems to me that the Prank (from what we know about it to date) wasn't horrible enough to have engendered the level of hatred that exists between Snape and Sirius/Remus, and that once existed between Snape and James. Dicentra again: > From his [Sirius'] perspective, he wasn't sending anyone to his > death. In all likelihood, he wasn't, but Snape makes it out to be > that way (which makes an interesting case for his life-debt to > James: it's more manufactured than real). I don't think > Dumbledore saw it as attempted murder. Me again: I can definitely see how Snape could have twisted these events in his mind to make himself believe it was attempted murder when it really wan't. But what about this interchange between Dumbledore and Harry at the end of PS/SS (Ch. 17, p. 217 UK edition): Dumbledore: "And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." Harry: "What?" Dumbledore: "He saved his life...Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt..." This interchange suggests that Dumbledore believes that James really did save Snape's life. Although I suppose the "funny the way people's minds work" reference could be read to suggest that this was actually Snape's perception rather than reality. ~Phyllis wondering why Dicentra refers to the Prank with an asterisk in the middle From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 4 22:06:03 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:06:03 -0000 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47735 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > Dumbledore lives *within* the books. > And you can look at him from the outside. > Or you can try and analyse him from the inside. > > But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously. > Unless that's what Dumbledore himself is doing Though not as lofty a conception as Gandalf, Dumbledore is also a mythic character (1). He can speak to the dead and communicate with beasts, he can recognize a genuine prediction, he has lived one hundred fifty years, and though we see him first on Privet Drive, he clearly does not belong to it. It is at least conceivable that Dumbledore is more aware of himself from 'outside' than others in his world. Dumbledore may not know that he is a character in a book, but he might consider himself as an actor on a great stage, whose part is to embody wisdom and goodness, so far as he can discern them, whether it seems that wisdom and goodness will prevail or not. (1) The terminology is from Northrop Frye's An Anatomy of Criticism, as explained by Tom Shippey in "J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century" (a much better book than its hyperbolic title would indicate.) Frye categorized literature into five modes determined solely by the nature of their characters: myth--the characters are superior in 'kind' to other men and to the environment of other men romance--the characters are superior in 'degree' to other men and to the environment of other men high mimesis--the level typical of tragedy or epic, where the characters are superior to other men, but not to their environment low mimesis--the level of the classic novel, where the characters are very much on a level with ourselves in abilities, though maybe not in social class irony--we see ourselves looking down on people more ignorant or weaker than ourselves Pippin From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 22:06:55 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:06:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question about wizards and living.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204220655.82355.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47736 --- bboy_mn wrote: > Oddly, I can picture the farmer driving his tractor up the Weasley's > driveway, past their house, and out into the field and never giving > their house a second (or even a first) glance. As the farmers passes > by, the Weasley brothers are bored with it all, Mrs. Weasley is > apprehensive, and Mr. Weasley is incredably fastinated by this > marvelous contraption the farmer is driving and has the uncontrollable > urge to go over and talk to the farmer about it; and of course, the > farmer is oblivious. I think this is taking it a bit too far, actually. The Weasleys have a farmhouse and adjoining lands, apparently legally bought, as you said. There's no reason why they would have a charm so extreme to make people completely ignore their entire *existence*. Waste of magic, so to speak. There's no reason why people can't know that there's a house there -- "owned by some family, don't know their name. No, they don't socialize much. Tend to keep to themselves. Just leave them alone, Junior!" In the country, everyone tends to know each other, but if a family expresses a desire to keep to themselves, people will just let them do it without much comment. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From StarHermione86 at cs.com Wed Dec 4 21:41:45 2002 From: StarHermione86 at cs.com (StarHermione86 at cs.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:41:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe? Message-ID: <173.1259fc8a.2b1fd099@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47737 In a message dated 12/3/02 11:47:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com writes: > We don't hear about the students brushing their teeth or combing > their hair, either. I just think it isn't something that JKR feels > is worthy of taking up our time with. There is only so much detail a person can fit into a book. Just like presents... We only see what Harry gets for his birthday. We don't see what he gives Ron and Hermione for theirs. We assume he does get them birthday presents, but it is not mentioned. In fact, I believe there is only one instance where we actually see someone get a present from Harry and that is GoF with Ron's Chudley Cannon's hat. I also think that there is a limited amount of 'bathroom time' that can be shown without parents accusing J.K. of being a porn writer. Plus, does anyone want to really read about the characters taking a bath? (opps, sorry forgot, most of probably fantasize about that). If they do take showers on a regular basis, I really don't understand the reason Myrtle is so glum all the time. :-) Sheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rinceceol at netzero.net Wed Dec 4 21:44:07 2002 From: rinceceol at netzero.net (rinceceol) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:44:07 -0600 Subject: Question about wizards and living.... Message-ID: <004701c29bde$b1e33e20$e8709d40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47738 --- Summer * wrote: > This may seem like an odd question, but where do > Wizards live? I mean, do > they live side by side with Muggles, and the Muggles > never know it, or do > they have their own little Wizard communities? I > mean, I guess Muggle born > wizards live with other Muggles, such as Hermione > does, but what about the > rest? I can't really see the Malfoy's living next > door to muggles... This > may have been addressed in the books, but it has > been a while since I've > read them! Thanks! > > Summer then twileen replied: <> Now it's my turn: In POA it's stated that Hogsmeade is the ONLY wizard-only settlement in Britain. So, in Britain at least, I imagine that the houses are either out in the boonies like the Weasleys', or they're concealed using charms like those that are used to conceal Hogwarts. Cheers, ~rinceceol --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/9/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 22:54:06 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:54:06 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47739 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > > I completely agree. I think there's far more that we have to learn > about the Prank. It just seems to me that the Prank (from what we > know about it to date) wasn't horrible enough to have engendered the > level of hatred that exists between Snape and Sirius/Remus, and that > once existed between Snape and James. > Hm. Just some ramdomish ponderings, here, but ... well, first off ... I'm not sure Remus and Snape hate each other as much as SIRIUS and Snape seem to. So, taking that into consideration: what if Snape hates Sirius because he holds Sirius responsible for James' death, and more importantly (to Snape, perhaps) his failure to repay the life-debt? Likewise, Sirius thinks of Snape as a sellout of the WORST sort - he joined Voldemort, ignored the life-debt to James, and then switched sides AGAIN when it was convenient so that he wouldn't get in trouble. What a wanker. Of course, it's entirely possible that someone else has suggested this already. CK clicketykeys From illyana at mindspring.com Wed Dec 4 23:14:54 2002 From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:14:54 -0700 Subject: Harry's gift giving (was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe?) In-Reply-To: <173.1259fc8a.2b1fd099@cs.com> References: <173.1259fc8a.2b1fd099@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47740 Sheryl said: > >There is only so much detail a person can fit into a book. Just like >presents... We only see what Harry gets for his birthday. We don't see what >he gives Ron and Hermione for theirs. We assume he does get them birthday >presents, but it is not mentioned. In fact, I believe there is only one >instance where we actually see someone get a present from Harry and that is >GoF with Ron's Chudley Cannon's hat. At the QWC Harry buys both Ron and Hermione those omnioculars (i think that's the correct spelling). He says that they're worth the next 10 Christmas presents - so I guess those could count! Although Ron does pay him back with that "gold." illyana -- S1.3 MIL+++ RWG++# FRI++ CBG++ P&S-- f++/+++ n- $++++ 9F13, 1F22, 2F13, 3F02, 3F05, 4F01, 4F08, 4F11, 4F19 F1980 HPGCv1 a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD "What's the point in having a Honda if you can't show it off?" - Superintendent Chalmers visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc From kethlenda at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 23:09:24 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 23:09:24 -0000 Subject: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) In-Reply-To: <90.300cfb41.2b1fc606@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47741 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Audra1976 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/2/02 12:31:36 PM, greywolf1 at j... writes: Now I have no idea how JKR's "Veritaserum" differs from Sodium Pentothal. > Would Barty Crouch have told everything anyway? I don't remember him saying > anything that would have hurt him and his cause too much. The things he > revealed he did were done and it was too late to do anything about it. He > was caught red-handed impersonating Moody, so he couldn't very well have > feigned innocence again. So we really don't have any proof that Veritaserum > forces someone to tell the truth against their will either. > > Audra Point. I think I had assumed that the Veritaserum was almost completely effective--it's magic after all. :) I also figured, if I were falsely accused of being a DE and facing a lifetime in Azkaban, I probably would have *wanted* to take the stuff to try to prove I was innocent...whether that wizard court would have listened, of course, is another matter altogether... Strix From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 23:45:54 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:45:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: hehehe / The Fidelius Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021204234554.24045.qmail@web13001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47742 Julie wrote: > Ok. From cannon we know that Voldemort learned who his > father was > just because his mother named him after him. > . . . but I do not believe it actually states that this is > absolute truth. > > What if in fact, Filch were his father? And his mother > named him after the nice man who took her to the > hospital. Perhaps his mother had a huge blow out fight > with Filch, and this is in part why he's so > mean. Maybe he does or doesn't know that Voldie is his > son. If he knows, maybe he's helping Dumledore with the > fight secretly. In not revealing that he's his real > father, then the whole potion that Voldemort made to bring > himself back is inherently flawed unless that > family is somehow releated to Filch. > > Anyone proove me wrong or add to this theory? > > Julie :) Grey Wolf wrote: The only problem with this theory is that Voldemort is 65 years old, which would make Filch at the very least 75, and probably 80+, and he doesn't look that old. Me: Um, actually there are a number of things wrong with this theory, and the above isn't one of them. While we know Voldemort's age, we have no way of knowing how old Filch is. Dumbledore doesn't necessarily look 150, either. (Normally someone who "looks" 150 would basically look dead. ) And I'm not even sure what you mean by "look." If you mean the actor in the movie, that's not exactly using book canon to make your argument. There's no indication of what he looks like or how old he is in the books. Just that he's very bitter and a Squib. So, although it's possible that Filch is around Voldemort's age or younger than him, that's not indicated in the books and isn't an argument against this theory. There are, however, other things in canon to scotch this idea. You mentioned that he was a Squib, but you seemed to forget about it after that. Filch is a Squib. If Voldemort's father was a Squib, he'd call him that. Not a Muggle. And the real reason, in canon, that Filch cannot be his father is that he ISN'T DEAD. Voldemort needed the "bone of the father" for the potion/spell/ritual that gave him his body back. That came from the grave of Tom Riddle. In that it was successful and he HAS his body back, I think we can assume that Tom Riddle the elder was in fact his father. I see no reason to speculate about this as it's very clear in the book. Even if there's a possibility that someone other than the REAL Tom Riddle was his dad, whoever his dad was, it was the same person who was in the grave labelled "Tom Riddle," and since Filch is very much alive, that lets him off the hook. --Barb Chapter 14 of the Triangle Prophecy is up on Yahoo! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 00:32:02 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:32:02 -0000 Subject: Thoughts? Beast and Disillusionment Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47743 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "melclaros" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" wrote: > > bboy_mn wonders: > > > > I was recently reading 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'(pg > > ixi) and came across a 'Disillusionment Charms'. > > ...snip... > > So, isn't that backwards? Shouldn't it be an Illusionemnt Charm or > > an Anti-Disillusionment Charm, meaning the placement of illusion, > > false beliefs, and enchantments, or acting against the lose or > > removal of illusion and/or false belief? > > > > ...snip... > > Any thoughts? > > > > bboy_mn Melpomene responded with: > Well it wouldn't be the only one--backward spell, that is. This is > going to come awful close to being a "one liner" but "ENERVATE" as a > spell for re-animating an unconcious person is also backwards. > Ennervat, according to Websters means "1:to lessen the vitality or > strengh of 2: to reduce the mental or moral vigor of." > > Melpomene bboy_mn adds: I've always assumed that was a mistake; the mixing up of two very similar words - Enervate means- 1. To weaken or destroy the strength or vitality of: or Deprived of strength; debilitated. Innervate means- 1. (medical) To supply (an organ or a body part) with nerves. 2. (general) To stimulate (a nerve, muscle, or body part) to action. The words are so close, I'm sure they just got mixed up and who ever proofreads these things missed it. An easy mistake since one could draw a connection between Enervate and Energize boy_mn From Audra1976 at aol.com Thu Dec 5 00:47:22 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:47:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: hehehe / The Fidelius Charm Message-ID: <16e.1807a920.2b1ffc1a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47744 psychic_serpent at yahoo.com writes: <> << You mentioned that he was a Squib, but you seemed to forget about it after that. Filch is a Squib. If Voldemort's father was a Squib, he'd call him that. Not a Muggle. And the real reason, in canon, that Filch cannot be his father is that he ISN'T DEAD. Voldemort needed the "bone of the father" for the potion/spell/ritual that gave him his body back. That came from the grave of Tom Riddle. >> I think you missed something, Barb. Julie's theory presumed that Voldemort doesn't *know* Filch is his father. He thinks Tom Riddle is. So your first point has no bearing on Julie's theory. Your second point is a little more viable. Would the ritual have worked at all if he used the bone of someone other than his father? We don't know. Julie supposed the ritual would work, but be flawed somehow, and there is really nothing to prove her wrong. Audra From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 00:13:36 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:13:36 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman: missing DE? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021202215950.034c4cb0@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47745 Carol says: >>> Again, people think this refers to Barty Jr. because we know he is working for Voldemort at this point and he is definitely considered by Voldie to be *a* faithful servant. We also know that it is through Barty Jr. that Harry's name is entered in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. However, Bagman is the Head of the Department of Games and Sports at the Ministry of Magic and it was here that the idea to bring the tournament back that year originated. I would say that Ludo had certainly already re-entered Voldie's service by the time of the graveyard scene and most likely had re-entered long before that. It is also for Bagman that Bertha Jorkins worked. And he steadfastly refused to send someone out to look for her. >>> I don't see much of a connection here. Yes, Bagman worked to get the Triwizard Tournament back, but he did this for LV? Seems highly unlikely. Ludo doesn't seem to be the brightest of the bunch, and I really can't see him coming up with this whole elaborate scheme to deliver Harry to LV when much, much simpler ideas could have worked. Even if LV had the idea and Ludo acted on it, then LV would have no need for Bertha. I really can't see Ludo, or anyone else for that matter, coming up with something so far-fetched and off-the-wall just to get Harry to LV. It seems as if the Triwaizard Tournament was simply something that was there and could be taken advantage of, not something that was *planned*. I do, however, believe that Carol has a good point here: >>> There is one other passage, which, I think, has rather ambiguous references. Voldemort is explaining to his gathered DEs his plan for getting Harry away from Dumbledore. He says:"How could I take him? "Why...by using Bertha Jorkins's information, of course. Use my *one* faithful Death Eater, stationed at Hogwarts, to ensure that the boy's name was entered into the Goblet of Fire. Use my Death Eater to ensure the boy won the tournament ..." >>> When I first read this, I interpreted it as "LV has *only one* faithful DE." However, it can also be interpreted as saying *a* faithful DE....i.e. "I used my *one* DE for this, and my *other one* for that." Just a thought. I think some great points have been raised about Ludo here, but the thought that he is responsible for the Triwizard cup scheme seems very farfetched to me. I'm not totally convinced that he was/is a DE, but it's definitely possible. (of course, this is JKR, she could finish the books and tell us that Ron and Hermione were really on LV's side the whole time, who knows...) -Laura From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Thu Dec 5 01:07:50 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:07:50 -0000 Subject: Sirius: PTSD (was: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47746 Before I jump back into the fray of whether Sirius has PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), let me make some general comments about anxiety in the Potterverse. JKR says that she values bravery over all other characteristics, and that's why she made bravery the characteristic associated with Harry's house, Gryffindor. Given this, one wouldn't really expect to find many major characters with anxiety disorders such as PTSD, especially not "good guys." It's difficult to show a character as being brave while also having an anxiety disorder. Frank Bryce definitely fits the description, and Neville might too, but it's not an easy set of characteristics to work into a novel. When we do see evidence of anxiety disorders in the Potterverse, it's usually in a very minor character (Mrs. Mason, and her severe phobia of birds), or in an unsympathetic character (Peter Pettigrew.) So, given JKR's emphasis on bravery, I wouldn't expect to find many (if any) examples of PTSD among her main characters, even though the Potterverse has *plenty* of danger and stress. Ok, onto my response to Monika's latest post. I've tried to organize my comments into two general topics, 1) whether Sirius has PTSD and 2) whether past trauma is an excuse for violence. 1) Does Sirius have PTSD? a) Did Sirius develop PTSD implausibly fast, and/or get over it implausibly quickly? When discussing the time frame of Sirius' symptoms, a theory was put forth that Sirius was traumatized by the Potters' deaths, not by his own suffering. I said he'd have to be a saint for that to be the case. In response, Monika said: > no offence meant, but you obviously haven't understood > what causes PTSD or ASD and how it works. You definitely > don't need to be a saint to get traumatized by the death > of someone else I was saying that Sirius would have to be a saint to be ONLY traumatized by the Potters' deaths, and not by his own imprisonment. I think it's perfectly plausible that Sirius was traumatized by the death of the Potters. He doesn't have to be a saint for that. What I think would not be very plausible is if he found the Potters' deaths traumatizing BUT did not also find his own situation (Azkaban, etc.) traumatizing. On the subject of timing, Natasha had said > "It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have PTSD. I completely agree > that if he did have it in PoA he made the recovery of the century > by GoF. I can't imagine anyone getting over PTSD that quickly." And Monika replied: > Well, this is a statement without proof like any other. No offence > to Natasha, but if she isn't a psychiatrist or a psychologist > and/or can point me to some literature which supports her > statement and proves everything I have read about it myself wrong, > I don't see why I should take this for granted. Monika, I don't see where you *or* Natasha has cited any articles on the speed of recovery from PTSD, so Natasha could just as easily say this to you. Regarding Sirius' recovery time, Monika said to me: > I'm still perplexed you insist he is "over it" [in GoF]. > I really can't see this. The fact that he is able to > think clearly again in GoF is not a > proof that he just got over it, or anyone who is suffering from PTSD > would be a "maniac" all the time and completely dysfunctional. I don't expect a person with PTSD to show symptoms *all the time*. However, I would say that Sirius doesn't show symptoms *at all* in GOF. he is very different in GoF from how he was in PoA. Also on the issue of timing, Monika said: > there is an artificial distinction between post-traumatic stress > disorder and acute stress disorder because of the > different onset, the symptoms are the same. I've already said that the time frame does fit better for an acute stress response than for PTSD. However, the question being discussed before was whether Sirius was suffering from *PTSD*. So, that is what I was addressing. b) Does Sirius show the symptoms of PTSD (or Acute Stress Disorder), particularly anxiety? I said: > The classic symptoms of PTSD are anxiety and > an inability to stop thinking about the trauma, > not choking people and slashing things. To which Monika replied: > You thoroughly ignore one of (several) of the hallmarks > of PTSD, that is the hyperarousal symptoms... > You can't just claim they don't exist Actually, I see hyperarousal as *central* to PTSD. I just called it by a different name, "anxiety." This brings us to the question of whether Sirius shows anxiety. Monika said: > Please go and read the Shrieking Shack chapters and the chapter at the > end of GoF when Harry meets Sirius in Dumbledore's office again. > Sirius' face actually *is* twitching at some point in the Shrieking > Shack (even though I personally wouldn't see it as a sign of > anxiety, so I just mention it for the sake of completeness here), > he is at the verge of tears when he talks about James and Lily, > and there are*two* "shaking incidents".... > And when Harry and Sirius are meeting at the end of GoF, > Sirius' hands are shaking, at least in my British first edition they > do. Then there's the moments when the "deadened, haunted" look in > his eyes is mentioned... OK, fine, I went back and read them again. In GoF, yes, Sirius is upset when he sees Harry, but Harry had been in mortal danger and another student had been killed, so I don't see Sirius' response as being pathological or showing excessive fear. I'd interpret the "deadened, haunted look" in GoF as probably a sign of depression, not anxiety. (Depression often occurs in people with PTSD, but is not a diagnostic criterion.) In the Shrieking Shack scene, JKR uses a huge amount of emotional terms in describing Sirius' behavior. Sirius grins (three times); snarls (also three times); growls (twice); roars (also twice); bellows; says things harshly (twice), savagely, or derisively; shows hatred or terrible fury in his facial expression; looks evilly at Scabbers; cries at the thought of the Potters' deaths; hides his face in his shaking hands; hisses (twice, once venomously); jumps when Hermione calls him "Mr. Black"; laughs horribly and mirthlessly; ponders; kicks out at Peter; and turns pale when he's tied up and told he's about to get the dementor's kiss. (I may have missed a few, but that's the gist of it.) Of all those emotional moments in the Shack, the only time Sirius really seems worried to me is when Snape threatens to feed him to the dementors. His fear here seems to be a reasonable response, not a pathological one. Even if one wants to count both hiding his face and being startled when called "Mr. Black" as fear responses (and I tend to doubt that either of them are), anxiety certainly isn't his predominant emotion. I'd say he's pretty low in anxiety for someone with a bunch of angry dementors on his tail. People suffering from anxiety disorders show excessive anxiety for the amount of danger that they're in. Monika continued: > JKR very well portrays Sirius as having signs of > anxiety, only you refuse to see them. And given the fact that she > was an active member of Amnesty International for some time, she > apparently knows very well how people like Sirius > react in certain situations. I guess I'm still refusing, because I see Sirius displaying quite a lot of anger and a fair amount of evil grinning, but not a whole lot of anxiety. Yes, JKR can do a good job of portraying PTSD (look at Frank Bryce), but who says she intended Sirius to have PTSD? I don't believe she's ever said anything about that. 2) Is Past Trauma an Excuse for Violent Behavior? As I've said before, this is a philosophical question, a question of values, rather than a factual question. I feel violence is justified in order to defend oneself or someone else. Period. The idea that having experienced trauma in the past is an excuse for traumatizing others doesn't fit my value system at all. I said that: > judging by the books, JKR agrees with me that trauma is no excuse > for violence. Just look at how she portrays the hero of her books, > Harry. He's been mistreated by the Dursleys most of his life, > is in constant danger from Voldemort and his followers, and > suffers greatly during PoA from the flashbacks of his > parents' murder. Yet, he doesn't go > around choking people and slashing things. Monika replied: > Well, Harry is 11, 12, 13 and 14 in the books. This disqualifies him > from displaying "adult" PTSD symptoms, I'm sorry. That's a fact, not > just an assumption of mine. Go and do some reading about PTSD in > children (and adults, including about gender differences) and we > discuss this point again later.... > And children never get violent, so your argument > that Harry doesn't show any violent > behaviour doesn't hold up I'm not saying that Harry has PTSD. I'm saying that in the Potterverse, people can suffer all sorts of traumas without becoming violent. In particular, Harry suffers a great deal but still tries to avoid violence. As the hero of the books, Harry to a large extent serves as the model of how a person should be. This implies that JKR believes that the idea person avoids violence, even after being traumatized. How is doing some reading about PTSD supposed to change this? I'm not sure what you mean by "children never get violent." There have been a number of murderers who are younger than Harry, unfortunately. I said: > Most people who have been traumatized do not attack others. If > someone responds to a trauma by becoming violent, I'd say that's > strong evidence that the person had a tendency to > violence all along. > ... most people having an acute stress reaction aren't violent. And Monika replied: > No, no, no. Sorry, but here I am adamant. You just tend to repeat > everything that was put forward in the past to deny that the > disorder even existed and that those behaviours were > merely a character flaw in those who suffered from it.... > You seem to like to say "most people" and rule out the rest who > actually *do* get violent. Your argumentation isn't scientific, I am > sorry to repeat it. I *definitely* believe that PTSD exists. But, I also believe that behaving violently generally indicates a character flaw. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Here's why I keep referring to the fact that most people with PTSD aren't violent. Suppose we have a group of people with PTSD. Some of them will be violent; most will not be. So, how do we explain these individual differences in violence level? It's not as if some stressors routinely produce violence, and others don't. (If you've read something to the contrary, Monika, I'd be very interested to hear about it.) It's not as if all the people with severe PTSD are violent, and all the people with mild PTSD are non-violent. So, it seems likely to me that pre-existing differences in violent tendencies provide the most likely explanation of why some people with PTSD are violent, and others aren't. Now again, we may be running into a philosophical difference here. Suppose we have a person with a fairly high tendency towards violence. (Yeah, I know there's no real way to measure this, but suppose there were.) Now, suppose this person experiences trauma which results in PTSD. Suppose the person becomes violent, and we know for sure that it was the combination of the person's original violent tendencies and the PTSD that caused the violence. (Again, there would be no real way to tell this, but suppose there was some way to tell exactly why the violence happened.) Monika, you seem to be saying that the person should not be held responsible at all for the violence, because the violence wouldn't have happened without the PTSD. I say the person *should* be held responsible for the violence, because the violence wouldn't have happened without the underlying violent tendency. (If I were a judge, I'd be willing to consider the PTSD as a mitigating factor that reduces the punishment, though.) We have different views of what constitutes moral responsibility. This concerns opinion, not fact. Regarding PTSD causing violence, Monika also said: > Note that it is only a problem in male > patients, and this has to do with the evolutionary path humankind > has followed. It's a fact that the so called "fight and flight" > mechanism doesn't function in the same way in men and women.... > And while most people (all women, children and a > percentage of male patients) aren't violent, a rather high > percentage of men are, and it's just too easy to > say they get violent because it > is their nature and/or bad character. So, Monika, you are saying that if Sirius had been female, choking Harry and so forth would have been wrong, but since he's male, it's OK? That *no* women or children with PTSD are violent seems like an exaggeration to me. However, I definitely agree that men with PTSD are more likely than women or young children with PTSD to be violent. But, even in people *without* PTSD, men are more likely to be violent than are women and children. My explanation for this pattern is that men are more likely to have violent tendencies than women. (Whether these tendencies are inborn or learned is another question, but they are formed by early adulthood.) PTSD can lead these violent tendencies to be expressed as behavior, but doesn't cause them in the first place. Your explanation seems to be that there are two different forms of PTSD, once which only affects men, and a second form which affects women and children. The two forms are identical in their causes and symptoms, except that for some unexplained reason, the form that affects adult men causes violence (even in the absence of underlying violent tendencies), while the form that affects women and children does not cause violence. This seems implausible to me, mostly because it is (as we unscientific types like to say) unparsimonious. Monika also said that I: > think people should be punished for something they actually can't > control. No, I don't think that. But, I think it's rare for violence to be truly out of a person's control. There are many men who beat their wives and say that they couldn't control it, yet, for some strange reason, these same men never attack their bosses or random large men on the street. This suggests that the violence *is* under some control, because these men don't act violently unless they think they can get away with it. If Sirius had attacked Fudge, or the dementors, or lunged at Lupin when Lupin had a wand and he didn't, then I'd be more inclined to think that Sirius had no control over his violent behavior. I suspect this debate isn't resolvable, because it is not really about factual matters. (We actually agree on things such as that the death of a friend can cause PTSD; it was a misunderstanding that made it seem that we disagreed on this.) The debate is actually over things like what constitutes responsibility, how we interpret Sirius' behavior in the books (anxious or not), what we think Sirius is doing during the periods (especially in GoF) when we don't see him, and whether we want to analyze Sirius' behavior as it appears in the books, or as it might have been written if JKR wasn't constrained by the plot. These aren't questions that depend on facts. We might get further if we changed the question. For example, we could ask whether people think that Sirius is good, or evil. I see Sirius as flawed, but think that he is more good than bad. I don't think his violence is justified, I think he lacks empathy, and I suspect he was something of a bully when he was young. I also suspect that if I had been at Hogwarts with him, he would not have liked me, and so I don't like him. But, I also think he has a highly developed sense of honor and responsibility, and is willing to sacrifice himself for his friends. So, I don't think he's evil (let alone Ever-so-Evil.) By the way, I see Sirius and Snape as similar on the continuum of good to evil -- both are flawed, but on balance are mostly good. I like Snape while disliking Sirius, but this doesn't mean that I think Snape is better morally. One last thing. Monika said: > I really don't know if you are as familiar with PTSD as you say, but > I have the impression that this is not the case. I haven't said anything at all about how familiar I am with PTSD, so I don't see how I can be accused of having exaggerated my knowledge. But since you want to know my educational background, Monika, I will send you that information via email. -- Judy Serenity From Malady579 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 01:23:48 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:23:48 -0000 Subject: Terrorism as an point of reference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47747 First I do want to say, since I am in this MD Defense Team so my opinion could be unfairly assumed, I like meta-thinking. I find it a lot of fun to play with really, but there are times when it is not a valid and strong platform to place your arguments on. It is fun to poke at the theory with it, but I cannot expect to do much damage. And the reason why is what I try to explain below. CK first attempted to say: >I find it curious that we're not supposed to use metathinking in >dealing with Pip's MD theory, **snip** Now, unless someone is going >to claim that Voldemort has been keeping an eye on mundane politics >for the past however long and is basing his actions on what he >learned there, this is an example of outside information being used >to support MD... Grey wrote: >>Interestingly, your example is just that: *an* example. Pip used it >>to help the readers get into position. She does not claim that >>Voldemort is involved with the IRA, nor that their goals are >>similar, nor any other similarity. Only that JKR might have drawn >>from her own experience to create that war, instead of the >>traditional armies style warfare. CK wrote: >Right. This is the first point made in support of the assumption >that the V/P war is that type of war. MD is /founded/ on that >assumption. Um...no. MD is not "found" on the assumption that D/V war is *based* on the IRA terrorist wars. MD is founded on the *fact* that those type of wars do exist. Pip used the example she did to give a type of visual aid as to how the war between good/evil was happening so far in the books. Her evidence does not say that the war was a mirror or a parallel to the IRA, but rather, a case where this type of war is happening. Ok, and example from me. If I were to explain my views that Dumbledore's watch is like one of those blinking red light tracking devices that are placed on people then I am *not* using meta-thinking. I am only trying to relate to the list how I see the ways Dumbledore's watch is used. I am just using muggle terms. Ok, I am a going to have to drag out the definition of meta-thinking, aren't I? Meta-thinking: using RL (i.e. that this is a book written by an author) or other authors' books to explain reasons, motives, and characterizations of a particular book. This includes, but is not limited to: 1. genre references (this book is a hero's epic so it must keep to the style) 2. comparisons between authors' style (so-and-so writes like this so she could too) 3. the need for the author to write a story or epic (thus not ending the book at a certain time) 4. the author *is* writing a story knowing where they are wanting to "go" with the story and thus factors in foreshadowing and hints (Just don't believe JKR is doing that with Dumbledore) 5. this is the author's style (she bangs) Meta-thinking is *not* comparing the book to life adventures but making assertions about the book because it is a book. That is RL in this definition. I hope that is a better reference for what meta-thinking is. It really is based more on opinion than text, which is why MD Defense Team has a hard time with patience with it in relation to MD. The above points are more subjective than objective. MD is an objective theory. Ok an example for you CK- If Pip was say, I believe that D/V is fighting a terrorist war because their actions parallel the actions of the IRA and English gov't, then that would be meta-thinking. Her evidence would be split between RL and the book. She would be saying JKR is purposely attempting to create an allegory of the events. (Thanks Russ for that one). But since Pip says JKR is drawing from her life *knowledge* of events, then Pip is only saying JKR is doing just that. She is writing using what she knows. Just like JKR writes about boy's and girl's crushes based on life knowledge. Another example just came to mind- If we said that Ginny's crush on Harry is similar to Marianne's crush on Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility, and then theorize that Ginny will not get Harry but will be the better for it because all Harry cares about is money, then that is meta-thinking. We are taking two works of literature and trying to draw a parallel that yes, *could* be there [not bloody likely though ] but is not as sturdy an argument as an in-canon theory. The meta-thinking would be in saying that JKR wrote Ginny's crush to be a direct parallel, or the meta-thinking would be that Ginny's crush would turn out that way because Marianne's did and JKR likes Jane Austin. So Pip's example of the IRA is just that - an example. It is not meant to be taken as a literal comparison made by JKR. Just an example to say JKR is *aware* firsthand that these type of wars exist. Melody From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 01:34:39 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:34:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Exhuming Tom Riddle the Elder (was: hehehe Fidelius Charm) In-Reply-To: <16e.1807a920.2b1ffc1a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021205013439.48760.qmail@web13001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47748 I wrote: <> << You mentioned that he was a Squib, but you seemed to forget about it after that. Filch is a Squib. If Voldemort's father was a Squib, he'd call him that. Not a Muggle. And the real reason, in canon, that Filch cannot be his father is that he ISN'T DEAD. Voldemort needed the "bone of the father" for the potion/spell/ritual that gave him his body back. That came from the grave of Tom Riddle. >> Audra1976 at aol.com wrote: I think you missed something, Barb. Julie's theory presumed that Voldemort doesn't *know* Filch is his father. He thinks Tom Riddle is. So your first point has no bearing on Julie's theory. Your second point is a little more viable. Would the ritual have worked at all if he used the bone of someone other than his father? We don't know. Julie supposed the ritual would work, but be flawed somehow, and there is really nothing to prove her wrong. Me again: There sure is. He used WORDS to summon "the bone of the father" to him. Wormtail did not physically get down on his hands and knees to dig it up and put it in the potion. From what we know of summoning charms, if the dust that emerged from the grave wasn't Tom Riddle's remains, it shouldn't have come out. If someone else was Voldemort's father, that shouldn't have worked at all. They would have been left staring and staring at the grave, waiting for something to happen, and Voldemort wouldn't have gotten his body back. And again, I leave the possibility that someone else was his father only if that person was pretending to be someone named Tom Riddle and his remains were in that grave, because it was from THAT grave that the dust emerged, and if it didn't contain his father, it shouldn't have. I don't know where the idea comes from that the spell would still have worked, but be flawed. That's the theory that has no basis in canon, IMO. The spell worked because Voldemort and Wormtail had all of the ingredients. When we've seen flawed spells or potions (like Hermione using a cat hair for the Polyjuice) the failure is evident right away. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the basic goal of the ritual wasn't realized. Dramatically, it also makes sense that the only complication to the spell will be Harry's blood. And even then, it didn't compromise the spell so much as give Dumbledore a reason to get that thing in his eye. Again, this was a necessary ingredient (blood of the foe) but it seems that Dumbledore suspects that Voldemort having some of Harry's blood will have a result that he wasn't anticipating. (A complication haveing NOTHING to do with the efficacy of the spell.) It would be muddying the waters to have an additional complication, and there's absolutely nothing to support anyone being Voldemort's dad other than Tom Riddle. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 01:55:53 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:55:53 -0000 Subject: Exhuming Tom Riddle the Elder In-Reply-To: <20021205013439.48760.qmail@web13001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47749 Barb wrote: > Dramatically, it also makes sense that the only complication to the >spell will be Harry's blood. Barb. Even without MD in tow behind me, another complication is also in the text. Peter's life dept to Harry. That also "flawed" the potion. A part, I am fairly sure, Voldie did not know about. And I also want to throw my support on the fact the spell would of known who the father of Voldie was. Spells cut to the truth it seems, and if not, then the spell would not of worked without the "bones of the father." The other parts of the spell were true even if they had baggage. Melody From melclaros at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 01:28:31 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:28:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47750 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > No, really. This apology issue comes up from time to time, and it > really perplexes me, especially in the case of the Pr*nk. We *so* > don't know what happened, especially in the aftermath thereof, that we > can't really go around saying that "Sirius should apologize to Snape" me: This is my 2nd attempt at this...my computer hiccuped during the last one....anyway, I agree. We don't know yet. But (and you knew this was coming, didn't you?)if we can't say "Sirius should apologise" then we certainly can't say he shouldn't. There's a lot to learn. Dicentra: > Consider the following: > > When Snape entered Hogwarts, he knew more curses than most 7th years. > He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius > would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he > went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against > Wolf!Lupin. > it's more manufactured than real). me: Okay, Severus had a "rep". But HE is convinced, or has convinced himself that HE, at 16 could not have defended himself against a werewolf. How many fully grown/qualified wizards could? I really think in this case, we really have to go with the judgement of the one who would have had to do the defending...unless he has forgotton that he did in fact have his silver wand with him that night. Dicentra > Sneaking around trying to get MWPP expelled is not as insignificant as > most people make it out to be. Getting expelled from Hogwarts means > that you never become a fully qualified wizard, me: Let's go with that. Let's assume that Severus has decided that this would be a good way to get those annoying Marauders expelled. His plan backfires. He'd then sulk around mumbling "curses, foiled again" for a while. He might even try something else even sleazier the next year, althoug that would be unlikey as he'd be under Dumbledore's watchful eye. It couldn't have been that simple. Even SNAPE couldn't build that dissapointment up into what he's hissing and spitting about 20 years later. Dicentra: Considering that Lupin was going to have a > hard enough time getting a job as a werewolf, preventing him from > becoming a fully qualified wizard would sentence Me: Which brings us to the age-old question: "Has Sirius apologised to Remus?" but I won't belabor that point here. Dicentra: > "Sirius Black showed that he was capable of murder at the age of > sixteen," he breathed. "You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You > haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill *me*?" Me: Now I may be VERY wrong here and I apologise in advance if I am, but Isn't it true that when Snape made that statement he was *unaware* that Black had just been shown to be innocent of a)betraying the potters and b) the blowing up the street and all that episode? As far as Snape knows at that moment, Sirius Black is, in fact, a Mass Murderer and he has no reason to believe anything else. When I read that line I didn't see it as anger over the Prank as much as fury over the murders that followed it. Snape now sees in the Prank, Sirius' capability to do such things. He's shaking with fury because in his mind Black should have been dealt with properly at the age of 16. >From that point of view, he's right. (Again...if I've screwed up the timing on this one...sorry...i still haven't been able to retrieve the book out of the 12 year old son's chamber of secrets. yuk.) Dicentra: > "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," said Dumbledore quietly. > > I don't think Dumbledore saw it as attempted murder. I don't think he > agrees with Snape on this point at all and is reminding Snape that his > perspective on the Pr*nk hasn't changed with time. Me: I see some of that too. I see him thinking something along the lines of "It's six of one, half a dozen of the other, Severus." He was the neutral 3rd party and knew the dynamics of the group at the time. However, there is that niggling little line brought up here in this thread in which Dumbledore tells Harry that James saved Snape's life. Dumbledore says this. He doesn't say, "Professor Snape believes your father saved his life." It looks to me that Dumbledore, if nothing else, recognizes that young Severus' life was, indeed in some jeopardy. Dicentra: > Sirius is capable of tremendous remorse: if he's not feeling > remorseful about the Pr*nk, maybe it's because he doesn't need to. Me: That may well prove to be true. But a response such as his "He deserved it" is hardly reassuring on that front. Melpomene From kethlenda at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 01:59:25 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:59:25 -0000 Subject: Exhuming Tom Riddle the Elder (was: hehehe Fidelius Charm) In-Reply-To: <20021205013439.48760.qmail@web13001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47751 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Barb wrote: (on the subject of whether Voldemort's rebirth ritual worked) I don't know where the idea comes from that the spell would still have worked, but be flawed. That's the theory that has no basis in canon, IMO. The spell worked because Voldemort and Wormtail had all of the ingredients. When we've seen flawed spells or potions (like Hermione using a cat hair for the Polyjuice) the failure is evident right away. There's absolutely no reason to assume that the basic goal of the ritual wasn't realized. In defense of the idea that the ritual was flawed (I think it worked, but I'm playing devil's advocate): I believe Voldemort made a reference to how this ritual was supposed to give him his "old body" back. And the ghastly snakelike man who emerged looked nothing like V's human form as Tom Riddle. Personally, I think that was a result of the experiments with immortality that he performed during his earlier lifetime--remember how Dumbledore said he was basically unrecognizable by the time he emerged as Lord Voldemort? But it's possible to theorize that his strange appearance is a result of something having gone wrong in the ritual. *shrug* > Dramatically, it also makes sense that the only complication to the spell will be Harry's blood. And even then, it didn't compromise the spell so much as give Dumbledore a reason to get that thing in his eye. Again, this was a necessary ingredient (blood of the foe) but it seems that Dumbledore suspects that Voldemort having some of Harry's blood will have a result that he wasn't anticipating. (A complication haveing NOTHING to do with the efficacy of the spell.) *nods* I have a wild theory about that...I have little or no canon evidence to stand on, though. So it'll just remain a wild theory until at least the next book... Strix From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 5 02:08:02 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:08:02 -0000 Subject: Exhuming Tom Riddle the Elder (was: hehehe Fidelius Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47752 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Strix" wrote: > In defense of the idea that the ritual was flawed (I think it worked, > but I'm playing devil's advocate): I believe Voldemort made a > reference to how this ritual was supposed to give him his "old > body" back. And the ghastly snakelike man who emerged > looked nothing like V's human form as Tom Riddle. Personally, I > think that was a result of the experiments with immortality that he > performed during his earlier lifetime--remember how > Dumbledore said he was basically unrecognizable by the time > he emerged as Lord Voldemort? But it's possible to theorize > that his strange appearance is a result of something having > gone wrong in the ritual. *shrug* > I think that if Voldemort's appearance was messed up as the result of a flawed ritual, there would've been some reaction from the people involved. Voldemort himself would've gone, "Hey! That's not what I'm supposed to look like! Wormtail, you idiot, you got it wrong! Crucio!" The various DEs who arrived at the scene would've been startled to find themselves facing a think snaky guy instead of the handsome dark-haired man they remembered. The fact that everyone except Harry seems rather blase about Voldemort's appearance suggests that he looks the way he's supposed to look. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 02:09:55 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:09:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Exhuming Tom Riddle the Elder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205020955.20425.qmail@web13006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47753 I wrote: Dramatically, it also makes sense that the only complication to the spell will be Harry's blood. Then Melody wrote: Barb. Even without MD in tow behind me, another complication is also in the text. Peter's life dept to Harry. That also "flawed" the potion. A part, I am fairly sure, Voldie did not know about. And I also want to throw my support on the fact the spell would of known who the father of Voldie was. Spells cut to the truth it seems, and if not, then the spell would not of worked without the "bones of the father." The other parts of the spell were true even if they had baggage. Me again: Thanks for that. But I think the life-debt Peter has to Harry complicates the relationships involved and who is likely to be on what side, not the spell. There's nothing to suggest that Harry's best friends couldn't have performed the spell to give Voldemort his body back as long as whoever did it had the requisite ingredients (okay, maybe someone more experienced, but still). Peter's role, other than to perform the ritual, was to provide "flesh of the servant", which he did. Certainly he was acting in the role of a servant in all he did (anyone performing the spell would probably qualify for this), so I don't see how his contribution could be nullified. Even if he turns against his Master at some time in the future, he was certainly in the servant's role at the time Voldemort got his body back. I don't think things like this can be nullified retroactively when someone's allegiances change (that would be an odd thing for JKR to do), so I'm not seeing a complication here. Whether he will perform in such a loyal capacity down the road remains to be seen, but that's another story (hopefully one written by JKR which we'll have in our hot little hands sooner than later...). --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 03:07:11 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 03:07:11 -0000 Subject: conflicting interests (was: Exhuming...the Elder) In-Reply-To: <20021205020955.20425.qmail@web13006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47754 Barb first wrote: >Dramatically, it also makes sense that the only complication to the >spell will be Harry's blood. I then wrote: > Barb. Even without MD in tow behind me, another complication > is also in the text. Peter's life dept to Harry. That also > "flawed" the potion. A part, I am fairly sure, Voldie did not know > about. Followed by Barb writing: >Thanks for that. But I think the life-debt Peter has to Harry >complicates the relationships involved and who is likely to be on >what side, not the spell. There's nothing to suggest that Harry's >best friends couldn't have performed the spell to give Voldemort his >body back as long as whoever did it had the requisite ingredients >(okay, maybe someone more experienced, but still). Sorry, should of clarified my last point. The potion worked beautifully. Everything that the incantation required was presented. Voldemort got his body...he just got it with more baggage than he expected I feel. Baggage that could greatly affect his plans and intentions for his new body. I thought that was what you were saying with Harry's blood and the potion. The blood makes it "flawed" after the fact. Not during the fact. What I was saying was that like Harry's blood, the fact that the chosen faithful servant was Peter also factors into the aftermath of the potion. That is why the potion is "flawed" now. Not because Voldie used bones, flesh, and blood, but because he used *Peter's* flesh and *Harry's* blood. If he had not used Harry's blood then Peter's contamination would be nullified, I do agree. The fact that Dumbledore is *so* excited about this "love" blood gives evidence that there is something about Harry that could possibly bring Voldemort down and Harry giving this blood (true, by force) caused a major wrinkle in Voldie's plans. Harry's blood affected Voldemort in some way. So if Harry affected Voldemort, then it seems Peter's contribution could too. And what did we learn in PoA? Harry now has an in dept wizard on his hands. A wizard that just happens to be a part of a major dark spell and now has a bit of himself in Voldemort too. So Voldie is the rebodiment of Harry's "love" blood, Peter's "life-dept" flesh, and his hated muggle father's bones. Nice conflicting combination there, isn't? Melody From kethlenda at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 02:26:42 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:26:42 -0000 Subject: Exhuming Tom Riddle the Elder (was: hehehe Fidelius Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47755 I (Strix) wrote a little while ago: > In defense of the idea that the ritual was flawed (I think it > worked, > > but I'm playing devil's advocate): I believe Voldemort made a > > reference to how this ritual was supposed to give him his "old > > body" back. And the ghastly snakelike man who emerged > > looked nothing like V's human form as Tom Riddle. Personally, I > > think that was a result of the experiments with immortality that > he > > performed during his earlier lifetime--remember how > > Dumbledore said he was basically unrecognizable by the time > > he emerged as Lord Voldemort? But it's possible to theorize > > that his strange appearance is a result of something having > > gone wrong in the ritual. *shrug* Marina responded: > I think that if Voldemort's appearance was messed up as the result > of a flawed ritual, there would've been some reaction from the > people involved. Voldemort himself would've gone, "Hey! That's not > what I'm supposed to look like! Wormtail, you idiot, you got it > wrong! Crucio!" The various DEs who arrived at the scene would've > been startled to find themselves facing a think snaky guy instead of > the handsome dark-haired man they remembered. The fact that > everyone except Harry seems rather blase about Voldemort's > appearance suggests that he looks the way he's supposed to look. Me again: I agree. I think the snaky-look was probably what he looked like at the time he got blasted into near-oblivion trying to curse Harry. I'm just being ornery and playing devil's advocate. :) It's *possible* (though wildly improbable, IMHO) that Voldemort looked "wrong". The flaw in that theory, like you said, is that nobody seemed to think he looked weird. Strix From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Thu Dec 5 04:37:53 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 04:37:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius & remorse; Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47757 Should Sirius apologize for the Prank? Dicentra said: > This apology issue comes up from time to time, and it > really perplexes me, especially in the case of the Pr*nk. We *so* > don't know what happened... > Sneaking around trying to get MWPP expelled is not as > insignificant as most people make it out to be. > Getting expelled from Hogwarts means that you > never become a fully qualified wizard...Sirius was > justifiably angered by the fact that Snape was hell-bent on ruining > Lupin's (and his, James's and Peter's) life. He had undoubtedly > confronted Snape about it before, but Snape persisted. Wait a minute -- "We *so* don't know what happened," yet we know that Sirius undoubtedly confronted Snape before? How do you get that? I don't think MWPP were in any danger of expulsion. Snape can't get anyone expelled even as a professor, so he had no hope of getting anyone expelled back when he was just a student. Dumbledore doesn't believe in expelling anyone, not even half-giants whose pets apparently murder students. All Snape could have done was cost MWPP some points or a few detentions. Did MWPP know that they were in no risk of expulsion? They should have, what with Dumbledore going around twinkling all the time. And Sirius just says that Snape was *hoping* to get them expelled, not that Snape was likely to suceed. (Harry always seems to think he's going to be expelled, but it just doesn't make any sense that Dumbledore would do that.) Dicentra said: > Snape can read a lunar chart as well as anyone else; he must have > suspected the truth about Lupin. Why didn't he go ahead and tattle > instead of hounding MWPP? I think the text implies that Snape did *not* know Lupin was a werewolf, although I think this is a bit of a plot hole. Dicentra, do you mean Snape could have tattled to the other students? The staff obviously knew already about Lupin's condition. Dicentra also said: > When Snape entered Hogwarts, he knew more curses than most 7th years. > He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius > would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he > went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against > Wolf!Lupin. I've also wondered why Snape couldn't just stun Wolf!Lupin (or AK him?) Perhaps werewolves are highly magic-resistant, like dragons are. If werewolves were easily susceptible to magic, I don't see why the wizarding world would be so fearful of them. As for whether Snape was really in danger of dying, I think that Snape *was* in danger (Dumbledore refers to Snape's life debt to James), but that Sirius hadn't realized just how dangerous the Prank was. As for whether Sirius should have apologized to Snape, I agree that he really has no chance in canon. Whenever he meets Snape, it's in the middle of some crisis. However, Sirius shows absolutely no signs of remorse at all when Lupin mentions the Prank: "Black made a derisive noise. 'It served him right,' he sneered." (PoA Ch. 18, p. 356 in US hardcover edition.) I think he could do a lot better. Has Sirius done other things for which he should be remorseful? Well, there's the on-going debate about the Fat Lady. On the topic of she is sentient, I said: > Also, I can't see > why the Hogwarts staff would negotiate with the Fat Lady to come > back, if she were just a simulation. To which Monika replied: > Do you read a lot of science fiction? Stories that deal with > artificial life in the future show complex behaviour in simulations > and robots I've read both science fiction and philosophy on this topic. If machines are ever developed that show as much autonomy and intelligence as humans, there will be a real question as to whether these machines are sentient and should be given rights. One major theory of sentience is that it's essentially a byproduct of thinking, and that intelligence without sentience is therefore impossible. Sherry objected that perhaps the portrait people are *not* sentient, because Sir Cadogan seems unintelligent. I'd say that Sir Cadogan is just supposed to be crazy. (In fact, Sherry, you point this outself when you quoted Bill Weasley from GoF: "Is that picture of the mad knight still around? Sir Cadogan?") Sherry asked what Sirius would do if the Fat Lady had been human: > he would probably shove her out of the way > and break down the door. What he actually did to the > portrait is really no different: slashing it didn't kill > the Fat Lady (whether she *could* be killed or not is moot), > she was able to get out of the way, so all he did was > "shove" her out of the way and break down her door. I interpreted Peeves' comments that the Fat Lady was "ashamed" and "a horrible mess" as meaning that the Fat Lady *herself* had been damaged, not just her home. I'd expect that if she were intact, she'd just move in with Violet or another painting until hers was fixed, and the other paintings wouldn't be frightened. So, I think Sirius did more than just "push her out of the way." Anyway, attacking the Fat Lady does nothing to let Sirius get into the dorm; the painting won't open if she's gone. It's not like breaking down a door. Since Sirius was a Hogwarts student, he presumably knows that. This is one of the reasons why I see this attack as so gratuitous. Back in post 47541, Clicketykeys said: > You don't take a post guarding something without the > understanding that you might run into > trouble. Occupational hazards, you might say Oh my, I find this a bit alarming. Back in college, I had a job very similar to the Fat Lady's (same physique, too...hmmm.) I'd sit at my dorm's front desk, checking ID's and signing guests in and out. I never thought that I had volunteered to let people attack me! I didn't even get hazard pay. (Just minimum wage.) I don't think the Fat Lady had reason to think her job was dangerous (and even if she did, that hardly excuses anyone who attacks her.) She's more like a chaperone, making sure the students don't say out all night, keeping the Slytherins from sneaking in and short-sheeting the beds, etc. Ok, for those of you convinced that the Fat Lady is non-sentient, there's some other issues. Ashfae noted: > Sirius himself nearly strangles Harry in his attempt to > get to Peter. Killing Peter is more important to > him than protecting Harry. Michelle said: > Lupin is supposed to be Sirius' friend and not [only] does the prank > expose Lupin's truth to Snape, but it puts him in danger of > unintentionally becoming a murderer or inflicting the werewolf curse > on someone, and it also puts him in physical danger too... > with friends like these who need enemies? Rebecca said: > What about terrorizing the Fat Lady, or scaring Ron. > Yes, he had > other motives, but he did frighten them. > Even to the point when Ron stood and said that Sirius'd > have to go through him to get to Harry. > ...[Sirius] doesn't think about all the people > he hurts along the way. He just doesn't seem to care > about anything but his own agenda; everyone and > everything else can just go to hell. Hey, where were all of you back when we were discussing Sociopath!Sirius? ;-) I think there's two ways of viewing Sirius. One view looks at his deep remorse over the Potters' deaths, and concludes that he's a caring person who takes responsibility -- perhaps too much responsibility -- for his actions. In this view, if Sirius doesn't show remorse for an action, either he did nothing wrong (e.g., Snape had been awful and deserved to die, or perhaps Snape was really in no danger), or the circumstances simply have prevented him from exhibiting his remorse so far (e.g., in the Shack, he had no chnace to apologize.) I have a different view. I think Sirius cares about a few people (mainly the Potters.) He feels bad when something bad happens to them. But, as for people outside this small circle, well, as Rebecca said, he feels they can just go to hell. If he's feeling especially angry, then the circle of those he cares about shrinks to nothing (e.g., he chokes Harry.) I think this view is the most consistent with the evidence about Sirius that we've been shown so far, but I think the first view has not been ruled out, and is quite possibly the one JKR intends. -- Judy Serenity From phoenix_gray at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 03:03:38 2002 From: phoenix_gray at hotmail.com (phoenix gray) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:03:38 -1000 Subject: Harry giving gifts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47758 illyana wrote :At the QWC Harry buys both Ron and Hermione those omnioculars (i think that's the correct spelling). He says that they're worth the next 10 Christmas presents - so I guess those could count! Although Ron does pay him back with that "gold." Hope I do this correctly. This is the first list I've ever been on, so here goes. Ron might have thought he paid Harry back, but it was leprechaun gold, which as Harry and ron both find out , disappears after a few hours. Phoenix _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 04:20:29 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 04:20:29 -0000 Subject: Terrorism as an point of reference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47759 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" wrote: > CK wrote: > >Right. This is the first point made in support of the assumption > >that the V/P war is that type of war. MD is /founded/ on that > >assumption. > > > Um...no. MD is not "found" on the assumption that D/V war is *based* > on the IRA terrorist wars. MD is founded on the *fact* that those > type of wars do exist. Um. Yes. Copy-pasted from the original post: "One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the Voldemort-Potter war?' "The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war." Thus, MD is indeed founded on the idea that the Voldemort war is an undercover war. > > Pip used the example she did to give a type of visual aid as to how > the war between good/evil was happening so far in the books. Her > evidence does not say that the war was a mirror or a parallel to the > IRA, but rather, a case where this type of war is happening. If she had used ONLY examples from the books to support that statement, I would agree with you. > Ok, and example from me. If I were to explain my views that > Dumbledore's watch is like one of those blinking red light tracking > devices that are placed on people then I am *not* using meta-thinking. > I am only trying to relate to the list how I see the ways > Dumbledore's watch is used. I am just using muggle terms. > > Ok, I am a going to have to drag out the definition of meta-thinking, > aren't I? Not until you cite where you got it from. I disagree with this definition. I firmly believe that discussing Rowling's possible inspiration or motivation for what she writes falls WELL within the bounds of metathinking. > > Meta-thinking is *not* comparing the book to life adventures but > making assertions about the book because it is a book. That is RL in > this definition. > > I hope that is a better reference for what meta-thinking is. It > really is based more on opinion than text, which is why MD Defense > Team has a hard time with patience with it in relation to MD. The > above points are more subjective than objective. MD is an objective > theory. > > Ok an example for you CK- > If Pip was say, I believe that D/V is fighting a terrorist war > because their actions parallel the actions of the IRA and English > gov't, then that would be meta-thinking. Her evidence would be split > between RL and the book. She would be saying JKR is purposely > attempting to create an allegory of the events. (Thanks Russ for that > one). Oh. Well, she does that too, in the paragraphs following - "What sort of tactics do you use in such a war?" (ie, a war such as the RL one referenced earlier) and then cites events in the books that support parallels. I hadn't thought of that. > > But since Pip says JKR is drawing from her life *knowledge* of events, > then Pip is only saying JKR is doing just that. She is writing using > what she knows. Just like JKR writes about boy's and girl's crushes > based on life knowledge. Yup. And, for example, to say that we can make inferences about in- book events based on Rowling's experiences, because that's the frame of reference she's writing from, is also metathought. > > Another example just came to mind- > If we said that Ginny's crush on Harry is similar to Marianne's crush > on Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility, and then theorize that Ginny > will not get Harry but will be the better for it because all Harry > cares about is money, then that is meta-thinking. We are taking two > works of literature and trying to draw a parallel that yes, *could* be > there [not bloody likely though ] but is not as sturdy an argument > as an in-canon theory. The meta-thinking would be in saying that JKR > wrote Ginny's crush to be a direct parallel, or the meta-thinking > would be that Ginny's crush would turn out that way because Marianne's > did and JKR likes Jane Austin. So then, it would /not/ be metathinking to say that Hermione's relationsihp with Ron is similar to one Rowling had with a friend of hers in school, and make inferences based on that similarity? > > So Pip's example of the IRA is just that - an example. It is not > meant to be taken as a literal comparison made by JKR. Just an > example to say JKR is *aware* firsthand that these type of wars exist. No, the comparison wasn't made by Rowling, it was made by Pip. If Rowling had made the comparison - say, in an interview, or something - then we would be talking about authorial intent. Again: "One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the Voldemort-Potter war?' "The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war." [This is Pip's statement, and the first point made in support is /not/ anything from the book:] "Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United' Kingdom was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of my and JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her fictional civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the news every day." Read that last sentence. Pip is CLEARLY making a comparison between events in the Potterverse ("her fictional civil war") and events in RL ("the one she will have seen on the news"). Now this is just a comparison. The metathinking occurs when Pip draws conclusions based on that comparison: "In this post I'm discussing the Shrieking Shack from the viewpoint of 'letting a known enemy agent (Peter Pettigrew) escape' and 'minimum necessary bad means (Sirius Black remains unjustly accused) to attain good ends (Harry's survival)'." While it is not directly stated, this perspective, and the rationales that follow, make sense ONLY when applied in the context of "an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war." Thus, Pip draws a parallel betwen the Potterverse and real life, and then uses that parallel to draw conclusions. Now, if the MD supporters are going to say, "well, that's not metathinking," that's fine. Clearly we have different ideas on what precisely constitutes metathinking, and I'm fine with simply agreeing to disagree. CK clicketykeys From abobos_revenge at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 05:04:04 2002 From: abobos_revenge at hotmail.com (Alex) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:04:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Mirror of Erised/potion test References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47760 Pickle Jimmy says: I have wondered on numerous occasions what was protecting the stone prior to the mirror being "re-positioned" by Dumbledore (Did Big D just keep it in his pocket? Was it only protected by the other teacher's obstacles? Did the idea of using the mirror only come to Dumbledore after he saw Harry sitting in front of it? - any theories welcome)... BUT, IMHO it was used to protect the stone, not to make it easy for Harry to get, but to make it impossible for anyone of ill intent to get. If Dumbledore (who seems to show contempt for Trelawny's inner eye and divination in general) had enough fore-knowledge to know Harry's involvement in the stone, why wouldn't he have known about Quirrelmort and put a stop to him then and there? Mm...first post. I recall that at the end of the book, Dumbledore rushes back to Hogwarts. He apparently, as I interpreted it, realized what was going on midway through his journey to wherever it was he was going and came back. I think that we can assume that Dumbledore doesn't know everything that goes on at Hogwarts, but he has a pretty good idea. He might've suspected that somebody would try to steal the Stone, but he probably didn't know specifically who it was. Whoever it was, Dumbledore may have figured it had to do with ol' He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. And thus, he probably decided Harry deserved a whack at him first. He probably only rushed back because he thought Harry would be in danger. I don't think he was too worried about the Stone getting stolen - Quirrell could've sat in front the mirror for twenty years and never find it. Kind of related, (and it may have been discussed before) but did anyone else notice how easy the first Stone-protecting obstacles were? I mean, if 3 first year students can get past them without getting killed or anything, then I conclude they must have been designed to get past with relatively little difficulty. Sort of a false sense of security thing, going through the easy little protections, and then there's this horrible confusing mirror at the end. Alex [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From michelle.pagan at colorado.edu Thu Dec 5 04:53:27 2002 From: michelle.pagan at colorado.edu (PAGAN MICHELLE I) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:53:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: The most fundamental question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47761 Ok, I'm about to pose the most basic, fundamental question to the Harry Potter universe, one that I'm sure has been mulled over countless times, but perhaps not so fundamentally. And the question is: Why the heck is Harry Potter so darn important? Take that facetiously please, because I'm about to be so blase about a life (albeit a fictional character's life, but still), but honestly, when I look at what we have, I just don't get it. So I'm looking for some insight into the canon that I just haven't noticed. Voldemort is evil. Granted. I think somewhere it might have said he was the most evil wizard in a century (or maybe that was Grindelwald). ". Ok, but a century isn't that long... In about 1960 he started looking for followers (SS/PS) and by 1969 people were referring to him as "You Know Who". So in the series he's been around for approx. 35 years. So, as I * know* has been speculated, Voldemort went after Harry especially. Perhaps he was interested in James too (bloodline or something, I don't know), but what he was after really was Harry. So even before Harry became famous for being "the boy who lived," he was a very special boy (baby). But why? Does anyone have any theory for that? Because otherwise, I just don't understand the WW's preoccupation with keeping Harry so safe. Yes, I know, Voldie is trying to kill him, but when I think of the terror in Cornelius Fudge's voice when they apparently don't know where Harry is in the beginning of PoA, it seems as if there is more to it: "... Running away from your aunt and uncle's house like that! I'd started to think . . . but you're safe, and that's what matters." (The Knight Bus, p. 45 U.S. edition) and then.. "Don't want to lose you again, do we?" said Fudge with a hearty laugh. "No, no best we know where you are I mean." (p. 46) I mean, really (and here's the blase part) -- so what if he dies? Yes, it's an awful blow to wizard-kind and darkness will have won that battle, but then what? I guess it's kind of like that philosophical question about how important are any of us, really? There've been evil wizards before, (i.e. Grindelwald), who've been defeated by great wizards before (i.e. Dumbledore), and I'm sure there've been them throughout wizard history. So if Harry's not around, odds are another will come around. It seems to me that ok, Harry survived, and "defeated" Voldemort the first time. Is he only important because everyone (or many "important" people) think Voldemort will rise again (which he is obviously doing) and that Harry will be the only one who can defeat him then? That seems so dumb to me, and especially so because despite the obvious fear about not knowing where Harry is (in PoA) other times the WW puts him in danger. (SS/PS and GoF) Why do they not care then? Answering my own question, I would say in PoA when Harry runs away is the only time they truly don't have tabs on him (the rest of the times he's at school), but even so, my question goes back to why? So what if Harry dies? Is Harry the savior of the wizarding world then? And then that gets way too religious for me, and I would think JKR might feel the same way. Let me know your thoughts, Polaris From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 05:26:54 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 05:26:54 -0000 Subject: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) In-Reply-To: <20021201210339.21712.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47762 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kethlenda wrote: > I've noticed several people discussing the "witch > hunts" in which the accused Death Eaters were put on > trial, and the fact that several characters have been > condemned to Azkaban on very little evidence. It > brings to mind a question I've had ever since I first > read GoF. > > After the fall of Voldemort, it was difficult to tell > who had really followed him, who was innocent, and who > was Imperius'ed. Yet it is in that same book that the > Veritaserum plays a major role in the plot. Why > didn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to > the accused Death Eaters, and get around the whole > problem of trying to figure out whether they had acted > of their own free will? I've come up with a couple of > possible answers: > > (1) It's an accidental plot hole. > (2) Only Snape knows how to make it, and either he > didn't know how to make it yet at that time, or else > was not trusted with such an important matter. > (3) Some high muckety-mucks in the MOM didn't *want* > the whole truth told, because they were afraid their > own dirty laundry would be aired. > > Any thoughts? Stuff about Truth Potions has come up before, and I pointed out that Dumbledore instructs Snape to bring his *strongest* truth potion. This means that there is a variety of truth potions, of varying degrees of strength. As there are varying strengths of such potions, it follows that truth serums, like the Imperius curse, can be resisted to a certain extent. This means someone with a particularly strong will (Mrs Lestrange leaps to mind), could be able to resist even veritaserum. And one can only imagine how dangerous a DE that everyone thinks is telling truth but is actually lying would be to the fight against evil. Roo From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 06:35:33 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 06:35:33 -0000 Subject: the Mirror of Erised/potion test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47764 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alex" wrote: > > Kind of related, (and it may have been discussed before) but did anyone else notice how easy the first Stone-protecting obstacles were? I mean, if 3 first year students can get past them without getting killed or anything, then I conclude they must have been designed to get past with relatively little difficulty. Sort of a false sense of security thing, going through the easy little protections, and then there's this horrible confusing mirror at the end. > > Alex bboy_mn comments: This idea that the 'obstacles' in the chambers we Sooooo easy to overcome has been brought up before, and I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Although, I will admit that a lot of people agree with you. 1.) A GIANT vicious three headed hound from hell. Oh sure, I'm confident that nearly every wizard, dark and light, knows how to deal with a Cerberus hellhound. I'm sure hounds from hell pop up all the time. NOT! I mean Snape is no inexperienced wizard and it almost bit his leg off. 2.) The Devil's Snare - a plant that first saves your life by breaking your fall then crushes and strangles you to death. Again, I'm sure that nearly every wizard knows what to do when they are completely immobilized and being crushed to death by a Devil's Snare (more sarcasm). The only reason Harry and Ron got out was because Hermione got off the plant before it had a chance to grab her. Even then, she only saved her friends because she is a virtual encyclopedia of knowledge. And let's not forget about the fall itself. It takes a pretty brave person to leap into a black hole and fall, what we are lead to believe, was a very... very... very... substantial distance. 3.) A room full of hundreds of flying keys, of which we presume, only one will open the door. Now the solution was simple, the key matches the lock, but how many people would think of that right away? How many people would spend hours capturing key after key, hoping the next one would be the right one? It required Ron observation skill and strong 'chess players' logic to figure out which key would likely be the right one. It took the flying skills of three of them working together. I took Harry's skill as a seeker to spot and capture the key, but only with the help of Hermione and Ron who blocked the escape routes for the key. 4.) The chess game - now there's an easy one. I'm sure McGonagall is a rank amateur chess player which is why she chose chess as her protective enchantment (more sarcasm, just want to make sure no one missed it). Chess is not an easy game to begin with. One would assume that McGonagall chose this because it was one of her strengths, so it is unlikely that a typical 'chess club' chess player could defeat it. And let's not forget the added pressure of the game. In this game, if you are taken, the taking player tries to kill you. Chess under threat of death or severe bodily harm does not make for an easy game. 5.) The Troll - they got luck, Quirrell already took care of it, but this troll, if I recall correctly, was substantially bigger that the one they defeated in the bathroom. The bathroom troll was only defeated by BLIND DUMB LUCK, and certainly not by any special skill or talent. Ron used the only charm he knew, which was one, prior to this, he couldn't do, and it was the wrong charm to use and he used it in the wrong way. I don't think many wizards are eager to be trapped in a small room with an angry 15 foot (or whatever) mountain troll. I mean, the smell alone would probably be enough to disable or at least disorient you. 6.) Riddle of the Potions - Even Hermione admitted that most wizards would have been doomed when face with that riddle. And, let's not forget that solving the riddle incorrectly mean either poison, or massive burns. Not an easy task to solve a riddle when you know your life depends on the answer; no room for error and no second chances. 7.) The mirror - even knowing how the mirror works doesn't help you get the stone. Yes, it shows your deepest desire but so what? You desire the stone. It shows you the stone. But HOW do you get the stone? Harry had absolulely no way of knowing that it was his desire to not use the stone, and not his desire to get the stone that would allow him to actually get it. For anyone who truly wanted to have and use the stone, they were hopelessly doomed. Let's take Seamus, Dean Thomas, and Lavender Brown, and see if any three first year students can get past these enchantments. NOT! Harry, Ron, and Hermione are three very exceptional individuals, each of whom posses an innate genius that even they are not aware of. Sorry, hope the sarcasm wasn't too nasty. I wasn't really trying to be nasty or rude, but I could just never see how anyone could think that these protections were 'easy'. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From illyana at mindspring.com Thu Dec 5 06:22:52 2002 From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:22:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry giving gifts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47765 >i wrote :At the QWC Harry buys both Ron and Hermione those omnioculars >(i >think that's the correct spelling). He says that they're worth the >next 10 Christmas presents - so I guess those could count! Although >Ron does pay him back with that "gold." > >then phoenix wrote: >Hope I do this correctly. This is the first list I've ever been on, so here >goes. >Ron might have thought he paid Harry back, but it was leprechaun gold, which >as Harry and ron both find out , disappears after a few hours. > Yah, I know. That's why I wrote the world "gold" with those special quotes around it. Because it wasn't real gold. illyana p.s. So I guess it was considered a present, then? -- S1.3 MIL+++ RWG++# FRI++ CBG++ P&S-- f++/+++ n- $++++ 9F13, 1F22, 2F13, 3F02, 3F05, 4F01, 4F08, 4F11, 4F19 F1980 HPGCv1 a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD "What's the point in having a Honda if you can't show it off?" - Superintendent Chalmers visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc From anglinsbees at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 09:13:58 2002 From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (Ellen & John Anglin) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:13:58 -0000 Subject: Sirius don't need no stinkin' remorse! Blame Peter! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47766 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > Or perhaps the reason we can't find a motive that makes sense > is because once again Sirius is taking the rap for someone > else...ever so evil Lupin, anyone? > Or what about the evil Peter! 1. At this point, he had achieved his goal of becoming an animagus- and might well have started having second thoughts about the whole running with the werewolf thing- They would have been getting increasingly "daring" and Peter would be the most nervous about getting expelled. 2. It would have, had it worked, Got rid of someone who made his (Peters) life miserable; Snape. I am convinced that Snape was probably just as, of not , unpleasant to Peter than he is towards Neville. Harry has noted similarities between Neville and Peter. (Admittedly before he knew Peters real nature) and I belive this is no accident. 3. Had it not worked (As it didn't.) it would have the effect of toning down the Marauders increasingly dangerous escapades. This would have reduced the pressure on an increasingly nervous rat. 4. It is also possible that Peter was already trying to "get the competition out of the way" and work himself into a position of favor with the Dark lord. Getting Snape, a very compitent DE out of the way would have done this, as would getting Sirius, James and Lupin expelled. Either way, his "dark" reputation would be enhanced. If only Sirius and Remus were expelled, (Because it seems, James might not have been part of the set up., why he would have James, The Quidditch Star, all to himself.... (In whatever context you want to put .) So However it turned out, So long as wasn't implicated, Peter would come out ahead! I theorize that when he set up Sirius, he was just repeating, and refining, a scheme that hadn't quite worked a few years before. He could have set things up so that Sirius would get the blame, or, and this seems more likely, goaded or manipulated Sirius into doing it, and thinking it was his own Idea. (Sound familiar?) Now if any writer is bit on the Bum by this Plot Bunny, and it Won't let go, I want to read the results! Please! Ellen The Pottering Beekeeper From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 10:42:54 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:42:54 -0000 Subject: Sirius & remorse; Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47767 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Judy" wrote: > Should Sirius apologize for the Prank? > > Dicentra said: > > Snape can read a lunar chart as well as anyone else; he must have > > suspected the truth about Lupin. Why didn't he go ahead and tattle > > instead of hounding MWPP? > > I think the text implies that Snape did *not* know Lupin was a > werewolf, although I think this is a bit of a plot hole. Dicentra, do > you mean Snape could have tattled to the other students? The staff > obviously knew already about Lupin's condition. This is what has been niggling me since I read PoA. After the Prank why the hell didn't Snape tell anyone that Lupin was a werewolf. What the devil did Dumbledore say to him that stoped Snape from even hinting the idea to a fellow Slytherin. I would imagine it would be very easy to casualy drop into conversation the fact that Lupin always looks bad at the same time of month, "perhaps it has something to do with the moon" jokes young-Sev to an impresionable Slytherin. But Snape says nothing. Why? Is he ashamed to admit that a Griffindor saved his life, but he could easly deny this if it came up. Who would his class mates believe? Judy: > As for whether Sirius should have apologized to Snape, I agree that he > really has no chance in canon. Whenever he meets Snape, it's in the > middle of some crisis. However, Sirius shows absolutely no signs of > remorse at all when Lupin mentions the Prank: "Black made a derisive > noise. 'It served him right,' he sneered." (PoA Ch. 18, p. 356 in US > hardcover edition.) I think he could do a lot better. I was shocked at this answer that Sirius gave. Yes giving him the scare probably served him right for trying to get them expelled but putting his life in serious danger - no. I do not believe that MWPP are entirly innocent in this matter anyway. What had the two rival houses done to each other to create such violent responses. Theresnothingtoit From potter76 at libero.it Thu Dec 5 10:41:21 2002 From: potter76 at libero.it (Rita) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:41:21 +0100 (ora solare Europa occ.) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe? References: <173.1259fc8a.2b1fd099@cs.com> Message-ID: <3DEF2D51.000001.55499@i3a2c5> No: HPFGUIDX 47768 Sheryl: There is only so much detail a person can fit into a book. Just like presents... [cut] I also think that there is a limited amount of 'bathroom time' that can be shown without parents accusing J.K. of being a porn writer. Plus, does anyone want to really read about the characters taking a bath? (opps, sorry forgot, most of probably fantasize about that). If they do take showers on a regular basis, I really don't understand the reason Myrtle is so glum all the time. :-) Me: That's what I believe it's behind JKR choice not to describe 'bath time', she was never asked anything about it but was asked about presents and replied that she can't put everything into the books but Harry does give Ron and Hermione birthday and Xmas presents, so I guess that she would assure us that Harry does wash! But i'd love to read something about 'bath time' and for no twisted reason but just because tha situation has a big comic potential. has anyone read the Buckeridge's Jennings series?Kids can turn almost anything into a game and when water is involved there's much more fun, wasn't anyone thrilled by real life summer waterbaloons wars?. Right now Harry and co. are maybe too old to use such a situation as comic relief, but I would have really loved to read something like that in book 1 and 2. R. Who could not stop laughing all the way through 'Jennings goes to School'. From gandharvika at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 11:22:32 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:22:32 +0000 Subject: (FILK) He's Coming Back Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47769 He's Coming Back (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Baby's In Black_ by the Beatles) >From their album, _Beatles For Sale_ Listen to it here: http://www.psci.net/~jmarsh/music.html Harry: Oh no, what have I done? He's coming back and I'm feeling dumb Tell me oh what have I done? Wrote Sirius a note, now he says that he's coming back And though MoM's still looking for Black, he's coming back Oh no, what have I done? He's coming back and I'm feeling dumb Tell me oh what have I done? My scar it hurt, he talks about reading the signs I have to convince him I'm fine, although I'm lyin' (Writing to Sirius) I just imagined it No point, you can forget what I said Oh, what have I done? He's coming back and I'm feeling dumb Tell me oh what have I done? Sirius' life is at stake If he's caught they will take him away Oh, what have I done? He's coming back and I'm feeling dumb Tell me oh what have I done? Won't let him go to Azkaban because of me Sirius has to remain free, I'm so worried Oh no, what have I done? He's coming back and I'm feeling dumb Tell me oh what have I done? -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 14:15:41 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 06:15:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? Message-ID: <20021205141541.49377.qmail@web40508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47770 Hi, this is my first post... I was flipping through PS/SS the other day and found some things that might be mistakes. 1. How could Fluffy bite Snape's leg? Fluffy is supposed to be a dog that "took up the entire space between the floor and the ceiling." Wouldn't it be rather hard for it to bite Snape's *leg*? If I were that dog, I'd probably just bite his head off. 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. Are these really mistakes, or am I imagining things? Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Dec 5 14:35:23 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:35:23 -0500 Subject: Sirius [does] need remorse [and Snape, too!] References: Message-ID: <003801c29c6b$8bc56b40$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47771 Dicentra, Sirius Apologist, wrote: > Consider the following: > > When Snape entered Hogwarts, he knew more curses than most 7th years. > He was *not* someone you messed with; Sirius would know that. Sirius > would have assumed that Snape would go into the tunnel armed--if he > went at all--and therefore could have defended himself against > Wolf!Lupin. From his perspective, he wasn't sending anyone to his > death. In all likelihood, he wasn't, but Snape makes it out to be > that way (which makes an interesting case for his life-debt to James: > it's more manufactured than real). > I agree that Sirius was thoughtless and reckless, and had no intent to kill Snape, and that Snape still has not accepted this explanation for his behavior. But I believe the text indicates very clearly that Snape could have died; it is Dumbledore himself who tells Harry at the end of PS/SS that James "saved his life." Surely Snape wasn't entering the tunnel with the expectation of encountering a werewolf, and he therefore was likely unprepared to defend himself against one, even if he had his wand at the ready. And Lupin points out in the Shrieking Shack that James saved Snape "at great risk to his life" and he knew that there was a werewolf in the tunnel. > Sneaking around trying to get MWPP expelled is not as insignificant as > most people make it out to be. Getting expelled from Hogwarts means > that you never become a fully qualified wizard, so any good employment > opportunities evaporate. Considering that Lupin was going to have a > hard enough time getting a job as a werewolf, preventing him from > becoming a fully qualified wizard would sentence him to a terribly > desolate future (yeah, worse than he has it now). Doesn't this reflect a very narrow point of view on Sirius' part? Because, the fact is, by roaming the grounds and the village as Animagi with Wolf!Lupin in tow, MWPP were already doing something that could get Lupin (and Sirius, too) expelled. In the Shrieking Shack Lupin acknowledges his guilt about how dangerous their activities were. The real problem is that Sirius was worried that Snape was on their trail. Judyserenity suggested that: > I don't think MWPP were in any danger of expulsion. Snape can't get > anyone expelled even as a professor, so he had no hope of getting > anyone expelled back when he was just a student. Dumbledore doesn't > believe in expelling anyone, not even half-giants whose pets > apparently murder students. All Snape could have done was cost MWPP > some points or a few detentions. Did MWPP know that they were in no > risk of expulsion? They should have, what with Dumbledore going > around twinkling all the time. And Sirius just says that Snape was > *hoping* to get them expelled, not that Snape was likely to suceed. > > Judy is correct that expulsion is very rare. Certainly Snape's frequent threats of expulsion aren't meant to be taken as seriously as Harry takes them. But I believe that the threat of expulsion for certain offenses is real. Dumbledore seems very serious about the possibility of expelling Harry and Ron after the Flying Ford Anglia episode, and I think the reason is that they were seen by so many Muggles that the escapade could have legitimately threatened the secrecy of the WW that the MoM works so hard to maintain. Hagrid was expelled for causing the death of another student, and Hagrid's subsequent history speaks to the dreadful consequences of expulsion that Dicentra has identified. (Dumbledore kept him on, IMO, not because he doesn't believe in expulsion in appropriate circumstances, but because he believed Hagrid had been framed.) What MWPP were doing was potentially life-threatening to others, so it was an offense that might have justified expulsion. However, since most offenses don't result in expulsion, I doubt Snape really believed he would catch MWPP doing anything dangerous or otherwise expulsion-worthy; he just (IMO) wanted MWPP to get in trouble to increase his own stature. Sirius was > justifiably angered by the fact that Snape was hell-bent on ruining > Lupin's (and his, James's and Peter's) life. Why is Sirius "justifiably" angry that Snape was sneaking around trying to get them in trouble when their actions were much more reprehensible than Snape likely suspected? He's angry because Snape might find out that they really were pushing the boundaries of expulsion. Perhaps my problem here is that I don't think anything *justified* what MWPP were doing in the first place. They were behaving recklessly, or perhaps they enjoyed tempting fate, as the fact that they laughed about their near misses later suggests. The very fact that they were out adventuring was something that, IMO, they should have felt remorse for -- and I think Lupin does show some remorse for it -- but there's no evidence that Sirius sees it that way. As "leaders of their little gang" I get the impression that James and Sirius were the inspiration behind the adventures and that Lupin was so grateful (if not desperate) for their friendship and company that he dared not voice any objections. > > Snape can read a lunar chart as well as anyone else; he must have > suspected the truth about Lupin. Why didn't he go ahead and tattle > instead of hounding MWPP? > I don't think Snape had any real expectation that they would be expelled, because I don't think he had any idea Lupin was a werewolf, and therefore he wouldn't have known that their sneaking around would be so dangerous. (Sneaking around the grounds and the village is not, by itself, an expulsion-worthy offense or else the Twins would be long gone from Hogwarts.) Given how werewolves are viewed in the WW, Lupin's own assumption that his condition would preclude him from attending Hogwarts, and the secrecy he was obligated to operate under, I think Snape assumed, like most others, that werewolves were not permitted to attend. As for why Snape didn't tattle after the Prank, I think that's a matter between Snape and Dumbledore, but that it was a source of tension between them. > Furthermore, the exchange between Snape and Dumbledore at the end of > PoA indicates that Snape's perception of the incident is not the same > as Dumbledore's. [snip] I don't think Dumbledore saw it as attempted murder. I agree with this completely. I don't see anything in the text suggests that Sirius intended to do anything more than scare Snape. But he still seems to think that "it served him right." And that really bothers me. > > We already know that > Sirius is capable of tremendous remorse: if he's not feeling > remorseful about the Pr*nk, maybe it's because he doesn't need to. > I think the text of PoA contains subtle suggestions that the Prank is something worthy of remorse. Lupin tries to be very careful and tactful in how he describes the incident to the Trio ("Sirius thought it would be -- er -- amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do . . . .") But Sirius is incapable, at this point, of feeling remorse for his enemies. I agree with what Judyserenity wrote: I think Sirius cares about a few people > (mainly the Potters.) He feels bad when something bad happens to > them. But, as for people outside this small circle, well, as Rebecca > said, he feels they can just go to hell. If he's feeling especially > angry, then the circle of those he cares about shrinks to nothing > (e.g., he chokes Harry.) I think this view is the most consistent > with the evidence about Sirius that we've been shown so far, but I > think the first view has not been ruled out, and is quite possibly the > one JKR intends. > Back in August, a great deal of time was devoted to the question of whether the Twins were bullies (beginning with #43024), and I was struck by many similarities between their actions and Sirius. I'm not going to suggest that Sirius was a bully, because we simply don't have sufficient evidence. Other than a few remarks and the Prank, we have no idea how he treated Snape, or anyone else outside his circle, at Hogwarts, though the remarks of McGonagall and Hagrid in The Three Broomsticks in PoA do suggest that James and Sirius were engaging in pranks in the Gred-and-Forge mode. However, Sirius' attitude toward Snape does call to mind the "team" analysis from the bully thread. Sirius is intensely loyal to his team. His tragic mistake in delegating the Secret-Keeper role caused the death of two members of his team. It was devastating, and his remorse over James and Lily's deaths and efforts -- at great personal risk -- to make it up to Harry are both sympathetic and touching. However, he has never been able to see Snape in any role other than "enemy" attempting to thwart *his* team's activities. Therefore, there is no need in Sirius' mind for him to show remorse toward Snape. While Snape was literally the enemy while with the DEs, presumably he was not a DE at Hogwarts (and Sirius states in Padfoot Returns that he has no knowledge of Snape's DE past). I think the handshake at the end of GoF supports the "team" analysis of Sirius. Dumbledore pointedly appeals to Sirius' team mentality by telling him, "You are on the same side now." By using this phrase, Dumbledore hints strongly that remorse, much less an apology, is too much to hope for given the current state of affairs. I also suspect, like Judy, that JKR intends to portray Sirius as a sympathetic character. I think JKR herself prizes loyalty (as well as bravery) as one of the highest virtues, and it shows in her treatment of Sirius (as well as the Twins). However, the mutual hatred between Sirius and Snape is not productive -- regardless of its cause -- and, IMO, not an admirable character trait of either of them. I do believe, however, that she intends for us to understand what I see as the darker side of Sirius' intense loyalty and support for Harry, just as I suspect she intends for us to see the complexities in Snape's attitudes toward Harry. I think Snape and Sirius could both use a little dose of remorse. Debbie Not a Sirius Apologist (but at least I don't think he's evil anymore!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mb2910 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 16:03:42 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:03:42 -0000 Subject: The most fundamental question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47772 campergirl_78 said: Why is Harry so important, and so what if he dies? Pickle Jimmy said: The wizarding world believe that Harry Potter defeated Voldemort. They don't know how, and I am sure that they probably don't care as much as they are greatful that LV is gone. This is *why* Harry is so important. It would seem pretty ungreatful if the wizarding world left him to die after he saved them. They owe him some kind of protection (and accolade) being that he saved them and lost his parents at the same time. Me: What about the Potters' house, it was called "Godric Hollow", and remember the Gryffindor sword thing in the Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore said something along the lines of "Only a true Gryffindor could use that sword" (sorry for the lack of a proper quote, but I don't have my book here with me). What if James had anything to do with Godric Gryffindor (or perhaps Lily had anything to do with him?), and because of that, so does Harry? And that is why he poses a big enough threat to LV that he has to go and kill the whole Potter family. Pickle Jimmy: So, the big question isn't "why is he famous *now*", or "why do the WW want to protect him *now*" - rather (like campergirl asked first up) it's "Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry in the first place?" And the answer: 42 (which is of course, the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything - see HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy) Me: And God's message to his creation is "We apologize for the inconvenience..." Meira. From jprobins at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 5 16:02:19 2002 From: jprobins at ix.netcom.com (James P. Robinson III) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:02:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potterverse Racism, & technology (Was: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021205100028.04f91c40@popd.ix.netcom.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47773 As the clock struck 12:00 AM 12/2/2002 +0000, chthonia9 took pen in hand and wrote: >I'm intrigued that no-one has taken up the last point I was >trying to >make: Given that a major theme in the books is that racism and >prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted >by >the ways character traits seem to run in families in the >Potterverse? Although one might expect there to be family cultures >which would make sibling/offspring entry into the same school House >more likely, even at eleven years old I'd expect individual >traumas, >sibling rivalries etc to have produced differing motivational >drives. (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) But it >seems that bloodlines do indeed have a significance This is a large part of the point I was trying to make in my posts under the "Classist Hogwarts" re line. Jim From Lynx412 at aol.com Thu Dec 5 14:47:05 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:47:05 EST Subject: Snape, Sirius and The Prank... Message-ID: <68.29a6d0b9.2b20c0e9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47774 I agree that we don't know all there is to know about The Prank. A lot of what's been said doesn't add up. I like Ellen's suggestion that Peter may have been behind it. My biggest question, though, is why was Snape harassing and following them? The implication, that the relationships resemble that of the current trio, is Snape = Malfoy. But still doesn't explain why, aside from House hostility. Harry & Draco have a family history and background that triggers their actions. James, at least, should have had some relative freedom to wander. We're told he was Head Boy in his final year, which implies that he was also a Prefect earlier. I suspect that perhaps Sirius was, too. I can't see Lupin as a prefect considering his...little problem...and Peter doesn't seem the type, not to mention the general disparagement he seems to have received from the teachers...something about wishing they'd been nicer to him. So, why *was* Snape harassing a Prefect, and one of a different house, moreover. Cheryl, who thinks *both* sides in that quarrel need to apologize... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From holtfinder at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 05:38:30 2002 From: holtfinder at yahoo.com (whirlillusory) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 05:38:30 -0000 Subject: ? about the Chamber entrance and intro Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47775 I haven't found the answer to this question, so I figured SOMEONE around here could help me out, or at least point me in the right direction! :D If the entrance of the Chamber of Secrets is "behind" the sinks how is it that Salazar Slytherin could have built this entrance? If the founders of Hogwarts lived 1000 years ago, that puts their time a little before indoor plumbing! TIA! When I post for the first time I like give a brief intro so... if not interested, just ignore the following! I'm 27 years old, and a science teacher in a small rural high school. Love reading, hiking, skiing, Star Wars (big time), movies in general, and lots of types of music. For the past couple of years I've been working on my Masters degree and thank goodness Harry Potter finally smacked me over the head a year ago! People kept on telling me I had to read these books and I always said I didn't have time. Last Christmas break I read them solid all the way through and Harry Potter became my much needed stress break over this last year. Any time I need to back off from teaching or being a student I grab a Harry Potter book and take a little vacation! :D From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 16:33:35 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:33:35 -0000 Subject: ? about the Chamber entrance and intro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47776 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "whirlillusory" wrote: > I haven't found the answer to this question, so I figured SOMEONE > around here could help me out, or at least point me in the right > direction! :D > > If the entrance of the Chamber of Secrets is "behind" the sinks how > is it that Salazar Slytherin could have built this entrance? If the > founders of Hogwarts lived 1000 years ago, that puts their time a > little before indoor plumbing! > > TIA! > I too have wondered on this one but can only assume that the entrance is actually a tunnel which, was concealed in some way for hundreds of years and the bathroom was simply installed later in that particular room. I'm afraid I can't come up with anything better. Diane From Audra1976 at aol.com Thu Dec 5 16:36:13 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:36:13 EST Subject: ? about the Chamber entrance and intro Message-ID: <160.1824781f.2b20da7d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47777 holtfinder at yahoo.com writes: <> We did have this discussion just recently. Search the archives for the details. True, they did not have sinks and indoor plumbing 1000 years ago. I think we came to the consensus that the Chamber entrance magically adapts itself to whatever is built over it. That way Slytherin ensured the entrance can never be blocked. Audra From jprobins at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 5 17:05:28 2002 From: jprobins at ix.netcom.com (James P. Robinson III) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:05:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On canon value (was Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021205105423.05845ec0@popd.ix.netcom.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47778 As the clock struck 05:15 PM 12/4/2002 +0000, mysmacek took pen in hand and wrote: >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" wrote: > > Eloise wrote: > > > > If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's > > > authorial intent matter one jot? > > > > Internal evidence is the same thing as canon. JKR's word is *also* > > canon. Ewwww. A dispute about canon! Now we are reaching the level of the Tolkienisti. I very heartily and vehemently disagree with the statement above. Canon is the books themselves. JKR's statements are her opinions about the works and ARE NOT CANON. I would agree that they have not one jot of authoritative value. A more interesting question is whether FBAWTFT and QTTA are canon or some sort of quasi-canon or not canon at all. > > (On a tangent, there is certain "softness" to JKR's word which >makes it > > less "canon" than what is written in the books. No. They have NO canon value, not a "soft" value. > If JKR suddenly > > announces in an interview that Hagrid wasn't taken to Azkaban, but >to > > another prison, it would drive many people on the list mad, since >it is > > a fragant violation of hard canon. And, knowing us, we'd find a > > plausible reason none of us would really believe but would use, for > > sake of our sanity.) There would be no conflict, since her statements are not canon. >I would even say that JKR's own words are NOT canon, unless written in >her books :-)) Agreed. >After all, she might need to mislead us - I doubt that if someone had >asked in online chat "I think that Snape is a vampire and a brother to >Lily Evans and that Dumbledore is in fact EVIL...." and if that had >been true, that she would give back anything but misleading (read >"untrue") answers. JKR is free to make ANY statement about canon or the Potterverse that she chooses. Those statements are just that: statements she has made. They have no canon value. >IMHO the canon value of various sources is like this: >1) the four (so far) books Agreed. >2) JKR's own words, unless suiting her otherwise I disagree. Her statements and opinions have NO canon value. They are her opinions and personal statements, not a part of canon. >(big gap) Why? >3) FBAWTFT, QTA This is a questionable entry. Personally, I would say they occupy some sort of quasi-canon limbo, but I could probably be convinced either way. >(enormous gap) > >4) the movies, action figures, etc :-) Aaaargh. Less than zero canon value. If anything, these offer a pollution of canon interpretation and should be utterly disregarded. Jim ************************************************************** This electronic message transmission contains information intended solely for use of a specific client and is confidential and/or attorney/client privileged. The information is intended only to be for the use of the individual or entity referenced above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please permanently delete this e-mail from your system, destroy all copies and notify the sender by telephone (512-651-7000 or 210-824-1565), reversing the charges, at your earliest convenience. *************************************************************** From divaclv at aol.com Thu Dec 5 17:19:48 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:19:48 -0000 Subject: Snape, Sirius and The Prank... In-Reply-To: <68.29a6d0b9.2b20c0e9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47779 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lynx412 at a... wrote: > I agree that we don't know all there is to know about The Prank. A lot > of what's been said doesn't add up. I like Ellen's suggestion that Peter may > have been behind it. My biggest question, though, is why was Snape harassing > and following them? The implication, that the relationships resemble that of > the current trio, is Snape = Malfoy. But still doesn't explain why, aside > from House hostility. Well...Snape has a few problems, but humility really isn't one of them. Yet at the same time, he also seems to have this need to assert and/or prove his perceived superiority over others (something which to me indicates a sort of insecurity, but that's neither here nor there). If he was the same way as a teenager, then trying to get MWPP expelled was probably his attempt to prove that he was better than the ever-so-popular James Potter. > James, at least, should have had some relative > freedom to wander. We're told he was Head Boy in his final year, which > implies that he was also a Prefect earlier. I suspect that perhaps Sirius > was, too. But (as I'm sure Percy would only too gladly confirm) as a prefect and Head Boy, he also had an example to set for the rest of the student body. Going out after hours (not to mention circumventing wizard law, etc.) wouldn't exactly reflect well on him. Sirius a prefect? I don't know, I get the impression that Sirius as a boy wasn't interested in having that sort of authority/responsibility...kind of like Fred and George. > Cheryl, who thinks *both* sides in that quarrel need to apologize... > Agreed. If either party is proven to be entirely innocent in these proceedings, I will be very surprised (and very dissappointed). ~Christi From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 17:33:53 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:33:53 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's Personality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47780 I wrote: >It would seem from Hagrid's speech patterns that he is from the North of >England (but I'm open to correction on this), possibly near Scotland or >maybe even on the border of Wales. This would also offer opportunity for >his Mum and Dad to have met, as I assume that giants are found most >commonly in mountainous regions. Rachel wrote: >Being from the North of England myself (Yorkshire) I have to say that > >Hagrid's accent is definitely not northern (any doubts I might have >had >were put right by TMTMNBN.) I always thought that Hagrid's dialect was more >Cornish (the south->west tip of England), >though if there are any locals >around and I'm >wrong please feel free to flame me *ducks >down*. :-) Me: Well Rachel, I stand corrected. Being Irish, I've only got a *cursosry* knowledge of British dialects - my Mum was from Sussex, and I have relatives from all over, so I've kind of got a vague notion of the accents. Cornish is an interesting suggestion. In the books, he seems to drop the *ends* of words, particularly *n* and *t* endings. Is this particular to any region? Is it characterisitc of Cornwall or a dialect of that region? Rachel again: >I think the reason why people might think Hagrid was northern is >because >the southern counties tend to speak more the 'Queen's English' >(it sounds >dead posh - compared to us yokels anyway ;-) ). The >northern accent tends >to be (in my experience) coarser, with more >slang used. 'H' s aren't >pronounced at the beginning of words, nor >are 'T' s at the end for >example. We're pretty much lazy talkers, to >put it bluntly. ;-) Well, that *does* sound like Hagrid, doesn't it? My imaginings of what his accent sounded like seemed to be quite Scottish: but I don't know how much of that was due to the knowledge that Robbie Coltrane would be playing him in the movie :o). The rhythm of the speech as written in the canon just seemd to fit the Scottish brogue. That was why I suggested that somewhere on the borders of Scotland may be a possibility. Rachel: >I've always been curious just what Blast-Ended Skrewts are a cross OF, >especially since I >searched unsuccessfully in FB for them. Any ideas >anyone? Me: This is actually dealt with in GoF. Don't have my canon in front of me right now, but in the chapter "Rita Skeeter's Scoop", where she exposes Hagrid as a half-giant, she also mentions the Skrewts, and says what their parentage is. Rachel: >I think this is brilliant theory (Shane's idea that Hagrid is really > >projecting his own marginalisation). He has empathy for these >creatures >because they reflect how he must have felt. isolated and >misunderstood. >Despite Hagrid's intimidating stature we know he >wouldn't hurt a fly. He >is indeed a gentle giant. (although >recent 'Flesh Eating Slug Repellent >Posts' may cast doubt on this). Me: Thanks for the vote of confidence. However, I don't one hundred per-cent agree that Hagrid *is* a gentle giant, as I point out in the previous post. I think that he has *repressed* the more violent side of his giant nature, and has also been *socialised*, by his Dad, Dumbledore and whatever other primary carers he has had into being the way he is. I believe that his more aggressive side finds outlet in his love of "interestin' creatures", and that also he has developed defence mechanisms to deal with any feelings that may become violent. When faced with diversity, Hagrid runs away and hides or gets drunk. I reckon that, as a child, Hagrid probably learned that he was much stronger than other children, and that he had the potential to hurt them badly. This could also be another reason why he is attracted to monstrous pets: as a small child, he may have been given a non-magic puppy or kitten, and by cuddling it crushed or hurt it. That's harder to do with a skrewt or a dragon or a giant three headed puppy. Fang is a very large breed of dog, and we don't know how long Hagird has had him. I'd say that he is a relatively recent acquisition of Hagrid's (in his adulthood). So while Hagrid's nature is *on the whole* gentle, I'd say that there are some aspects of his giant nature in there too, well buried. Rachel: >Also, has anyone ever wondered where Hagrid *lived* after his expulsion from Hogwarts, >with one absent parent and one dead. Especially as there has been speculation whether he >took the Groundskeeper job straight away. Did he have other relatives he could stay with? >If so why haven't we heard of them? And will we hear from them in future books? Me: I've always reckoned that he was looked after by Dumbledore. A room was probably found for him in Hogsmeade, and once Dumbledore had persuaded the board to take him back as assistant Game-Keeper, he was given a room until he was made Head (and from what I can see, only) Game-Keeper. There's also the possibility that there are some wizarding orphanages. The WW must have orphans or children who for one reason or another need to be taken into care. Is this all dealt with within the community, or is there a wizarding social services? maybe Hagrid was briefly in an orphanage or with a foster family? That's all for now. Take it easy. Shane. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 17:37:21 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:37:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius & remorse; Fat Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205173721.57049.qmail@web21412.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47781 Much ado has been made about Sirius's attack of the Fat Lady - he "terrorized" her to get to Pettigrew, so therefore he must be evil. This was followed by a huge debate as to whether the portrait people are sentient. I argued that their sentience or lack thereof is moot as far as Sirius is concerned at this point. Judy quoted me: > Sherry objected that perhaps the portrait people are *not* sentient, > because Sir Cadogan seems unintelligent. I'd say that Sir Cadogan is > just supposed to be crazy. (In fact, Sherry, you point this outself > when you quoted Bill Weasley from GoF: "Is that picture of the mad > knight still around? Sir Cadogan?") Okay, I was pretty much kidding about Sir Cadogan. My whole point was not to prove or disprove sentience, but to show that Sirius didn't actually *attack* anyone to get in to Gryffindor Tower, and to support Audra's analogy to breaking down a door, as I said in the next quote: > Sherry asked what Sirius would do if the Fat Lady had been human: > > he would probably shove her out of the way > > and break down the door. What he actually did to the > > portrait is really no different: slashing it didn't kill > > the Fat Lady (whether she *could* be killed or not is moot), > > she was able to get out of the way, so all he did was > > "shove" her out of the way and break down her door. > > I interpreted Peeves' comments that the Fat Lady was "ashamed" and "a > horrible mess" as meaning that the Fat Lady *herself* had been > damaged, not just her home. I'd expect that if she were intact, she'd > just move in with Violet or another painting until hers was fixed, and > the other paintings wouldn't be frightened. So, I think Sirius did > more than just "push her out of the way." Agreed, he did do more than just "push her out of the way": he broke into her home and destroyed her property, which is very traumatizing. *However*, my point was that he didn't consider her feelings when he did this - he was focused on getting to Pettigrew. Have you ever seen someone who is wholly focused on a single goal? Pushing the Fat Lady out of the way and destroying her home was incidental to his goal; he may be feeling bad about that after the fact, or he may discount her feelings altogether, or he may simply be unaware of it since he had tunnel vision at the time. My point is that he didn't do it to terrorize the Fat Lady; he did it rashly, without considering the consequences for her. This may indicate that he is rash, or immature, or whatever, but it does *not* indicate that he is evil. The incident *did* help to lead the Trio down the wrong path, since they took it as further evidence that Sirius Black was a mad murderer and that he was after Harry. Then there's the incident of choking Harry. I think others have explained this very well. Again, he was bent on getting to Pettigrew, and now here's this meddling little brat getting in his way. This was *extremely* rash, and I don't intend to defend Sirius for it. Again, my point is that Sirius is not *evil*. He didn't throttle Harry with the intent to murder an innocent bystander. He was also, at this point, desperate to explain himself to Lupin (and to Harry, to a lesser degree), adding a high level of frustration. It does point to a dangerous lack of self control, though, and Harry needs to learn this, since he tends to see his godfather through rose-colored glasses. As for his lack of remorse about the Prank, I submit that he *does* feel remorse over the Prank. In fact, he is positively *dripping* with remorse, so much so that he can't bring himself to admit it, even to himself. His comment that Snape was asking for it is a defense mechanism. He now has the (adult) ability to realize all the things that the listees have pointed out - Snape could have been killed, Lupin could have been killed, Lupin could have become a murderer, etc. But this wound is still raw, and he is unable to bring himself to examine it at this point. I suspect that this is one of the things that the Dementors forced him to relive in Azkaban. His time there couldn't have been *all* focused on his innocence of the Muggle Massacre; he is guilty of certain things after all, not murder, but certainly he is flawed and has done things in the past that the Dementors could draw on; otherwise, he wouldn't have needed to *concentrate* so hard on his innocence and revert to his dog form when things got bad. In conclusion, my take on Sirius is that he has a lot of issues to work through, but he is *not* Ever So Evil, and has the potential to become a good force in Harry's life. I suspect that Sirius and Harry will do a lot of growing up together. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Dec 5 17:41:32 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:41:32 EST Subject: Terrorism as an point of reference/On the nature of theories. Message-ID: <18a.1250fdbe.2b20e9cc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47782 Melody: > Ok, I am a going to have to drag out the definition of meta-thinking, > aren't I? I wish we *could* get this defined satisfactorily once and for all! > > Meta-thinking: using RL (i.e. that this is a book written by an > author) or other authors' books to explain reasons, motives, and > characterizations of a particular book. This includes, but is not > limited to: > 1. genre references (this book is a hero's epic so it must keep to > the style) Then I don't indulge in that kind of meta-thinking. I would say that JKR is a aware of and draws on the hero's journey/epic tradition. But there is no rule that says she is slavishly following a formula. > 2. comparisons between authors' style (so-and-so writes like this so > she could too) She *could*. You cannot prove a negative. That is different form saying that *because* so-and-so writes like this, JKR is doing so too. Again, I don't think we do this. > 3. the need for the author to write a story or epic (thus not ending > the book at a certain time) I don't think anyone seriously uses this in such a bald way as I think Charis Julia explained. > 4. the author *is* writing a story knowing where they are wanting to > "go" with the story and thus factors in foreshadowing and hints (Just > don't believe JKR is doing that with Dumbledore) The author is undeniably writing a story knowing where she wants to go. The last chapter of Book 7 is written. That, according to the MD Defense (do I have to use US spelling?) Team definition is canon. As you say it is your *belief* that she is not factoring in forshadowings and hints regarding Dumbledore and nothing more. A recent discussion has focussed on JKR's statement that there are a lot of clues in CoS. If those aren't hints, what are they? And why should Dumbledore be exempt? > 5. this is the author's style (she bangs) Knowldege of an author's style is, at east to an extent, objective and comes from internal evidence. As I have said, I accept that as a fair criticism of my Diana theory. There is nothing wrong with someone who approaches something from a different angle pointing out a potential problem with the *whole basis* my theory. The difference is that I simply say, 'yes, from that point of view there's a problem there; you could be right', instead of insisting that the criticism is unfair or irrelevant. > > Meta-thinking is *not* comparing the book to life adventures but > making assertions about the book because it is a book. That is RL in > this definition. I think you here highlight a problem that some of us have with MD. Every time someone articulates a problem, the MD Defense Team (you don't know how hard it is to spell American!) pulls out a new and unexpected definition. Now you have your own definition of RL. > > I hope that is a better reference for what meta-thinking is. It > really is based more on opinion than text, which is why MD Defense > Team has a hard time with patience with it in relation to MD. The > above points are more subjective than objective. MD is an objective > theory. The way you have expressed it, perhaps. What you basically seem to be saying is that meta-thinking = using any of the tools of literary criticism, but then giving only the crudest examples of their use, as Grey Wolf did also. As Grey Wolf was courteous enough to acknowledge, though, those who indulge in meta-thinking tend to be a little better at it than that. I personally do not see how objectivity consists in denying the known fact that JKR is not writing in a literary vacuum. She is a well-read woman, who even if not consciously drawing on pre-existing literary traditions is aware of them. I fail to see how an author can write a book without any consideration of plot of character development, pacing or narrative considerations. Or, to take JKR out of it, how characters can exist without these considerations. they are, after all *characters* not *people*. No, we cannot *know* what JKR's intentions are in all these directions (and I've argued that they are in some ways irrelevant anyway), but she must have them and it is perverse to persist in saying that we should ignore that fact. We *do* know that there are certain themes she is exploring. These are explicit or implicit within canon (and also stated in interview, which the MDDT regards as canon) and I object to the implication that using these as a criteria to test a theory is subjective. So if an objector holds that MD violates the theme of choices, I cannot see that that is a criticism based on meta-thinking: it is based objectively on the internal evidence of the books. Even Big Bang is based on the internal evidence of what has happened within the text so far. Using Stanislavskian theory as a basis to understand character, OTOH, seems to be making a *subjective* decision only to consider *part* of the canon evidence available. I find it curious that it is legitimate to dismiss part of the canon evidence from *within* the texts of the books themselves, whilst at the same time accept as canon JKR's opinions stated outside the books themselves. > So Pip's example of the IRA is just that - an example. It is not > meant to be taken as a literal comparison made by JKR. Just an > example to say JKR is *aware* firsthand that these type of wars exist. And JKR is equally aware that myth, epic, fairy tale, the need to write a coherent story, etc etc. all exist. I cannot see how it is legitimate to make assumptions on the basis that she is aware of events in what for want of a better term, it having just been hi-jacked to mean something else, I shall call Real Life and illigitimate to assume that she is aware of literary forms that she has encountered in, err, Real Life. Either both are legitimate, or both are illegitimate. As far as I'm concerned. :-) ~Eloise > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mailowen at aol.com Thu Dec 5 16:58:40 2002 From: mailowen at aol.com (dowen331) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:58:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius Consequences/other POA thoughts In-Reply-To: <20021204153317.62303.qmail@web20007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47783 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rebecca Stephens wrote: > The thing about Sirius is that he *still* doesn't seem > to understand that his actions have (unintended) > consequences. He doesn't think about all the people > he hurts along the way. He just doesn't seem to care > about anything but his own agenda; everyone and > everything else can just go to hell. > > > Rebecca On this question of Sirius understanding the consequences of his actions, I came across this statement by Dumbledore when re-reading POA: Ch. 21 "Hermione's Secret", (p. 392 US Paperback) Dumbledore is responding to Hermione and Harry's proclamations of the truth of Sirius's story: "Sirius has not acted like an innocent man. The attack on the Fat Lady--entering Gryffindor Tower with a knife--without Pettigrew, alive or dead, we have no chance of overturning Sirius's sentence." The way I read this, Sirius certainly does face consequences for his behavior. His consequence is having to continue living in hiding and on the run, because he can't prove his innocence. IMO, if Sirius had done things differently, maybe gotten a message to Dumbledore instead of trying to get Pettigrew himself, he would be free and clear now. And even though we don't see Sirius himself coming to this realization, I'm sure Dumbledore had the same conversation with him right before coming down to see HH. As I see it, as he lives a life of hiding, he ponders every day about the consequences of his actions, and resolves to conduct himself differently in the future (hence his much changed demeanor in GOF). Now, if I may be indulged for a moment: I had one of those "aha!" moments on this reading of POA, and while I'm sure this is not new to many of you, I don't have anyone here who can share my excitement about making a new discovery! P. 327, as HRH are getting ready to go down to Hagrid's hut right before Buckbeak's execution, they are waiting for the entrance hall to clear, hiding in an empty chamber. "They heard a last pair of people hurrying across the hall and a door slamming." This time around it hit me: *They heard themselves!!* It was time-travel!HH that were hurrying into a closet and slamming the door right before they went out! I never noticed that before--thanks for letting me share my moment of discovery :-). Finally, a question of accuracy: p. 370: Is it a known FLINT (is that the right term?) when Sirius says to Peter (in the Shrieking Shack): "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half dead." By my count he's been in hiding for 12 or 13 years at the most at this point, so where does 15 come from? Thanks for everyone's help on this. Deb331 (proud to say she actually caught up on the flurry of posts from the last week, although she's afraid her family is losing patience with this!) From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 17:53:09 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:53:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius & remorse; Fat Lady In-Reply-To: <20021205173721.57049.qmail@web21412.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021205175309.94236.qmail@web20004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47784 --- Sherry Garfio wrote: > > In conclusion, my take on Sirius is that he has a > lot of issues to work > through, but he is *not* Ever So Evil, and has the > potential to become a good > force in Harry's life. I suspect that Sirius and > Harry will do a lot of > growing up together. > > Sherry I don't think Sirius is evil. I just think he is a grade-A first class jerk. I don't think Snape is evil either, but I think he is a mean and vindictive person. Likewise I think Sirius is vindictive and unapologetic for the things he's done wrong. I don't like either of them, but I believe they can counted on to support Dumbledore against Voldemort. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 18:00:40 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:00:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another question about the "Witch Hunts" (Veritaserum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205180040.96709.qmail@web21411.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47785 Kethlenda wrote: > Why didn't the Ministry of Magic administer Veritaserum to > the accused Death Eaters, and get around the whole > problem of trying to figure out whether they had acted > of their own free will? I've come up with a couple of > possible answers: > > (1) It's an accidental plot hole. > (2) Only Snape knows how to make it, and either he > didn't know how to make it yet at that time, or else > was not trusted with such an important matter. > (3) Some high muckety-mucks in the MOM didn't *want* > the whole truth told, because they were afraid their > own dirty laundry would be aired. I vote for #3. Note also that Fudge went behind Dumbledore's back very swiftly to bring a Dementor into the castle to Kiss Crouch Jr. He knows very well how Dumbledore feels about the Dementors. IIRC, he knew that Dumbledore had just heard Barty's Veritaserum-induced confession, and he probably felt an urgent need to silence him before he could be questioned further. Barty Jr went kicking and screaming to Azkaban, proclaiming his innocence and begging his father to listen. Perhaps Fudge knows something about that. Maybe he worked under Crouch at the time. Obviously, Crouch Jr is now working for Voldemort, but was it his false imprisonment (both in Azkaban and in his father's house) at the hands of his own father that drove him to it? (Apologies if this has been brought up recentl; I've skipped quite a few posts in an attempt to catch up .) Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 5 18:10:41 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:10:41 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Racism, & technology (Was: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021205100028.04f91c40@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47786 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "James P. Robinson III" wrote: > As the clock struck 12:00 AM 12/2/2002 +0000, chthonia9 took pen in hand and wrote: > >I'm intrigued that no-one has taken up the last point I was > >trying to make: Given that a major theme in the books is that racism andprejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted by the ways character traits seem to run in families in thePotterverse? Although one might expect there to be family cultures which would make sibling/offspring entry into the same school Housemore likely, even at eleven years old I'd expect individual traumas,sibling rivalries etc to have produced differing motivational drives. (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) But it seems that bloodlines do indeed have a significance << Jim: > This is a large part of the point I was trying to make in my posts under the "Classist Hogwarts" re line.<< > One thing that wasn't pointed out in this thread or in Jim's is that it would be easier to avoid racism and prejudice if there was no evidence at all that character traits can be handed down genetically or "in the blood" as the wizards would say. The loudest proponents of the contrary view in the Potterverse are of course Aunt Marge and Hagrid, both animal lovers and breeders. It's natural that they would generalize from their observations of animals to human beings, and yes, it's stupid. Maybe the Malfoys have "bad blood" and maybe they don't. But knowing whether the Malfoy preference for Slytherin is genetic or cultural doesn't tell us anything at all about what an individual Malfoy is like. Possibly some of them ended up in Slytherin even though the Hat thought they would do well elsewhere. And if the Malfoy clan throws up a "white sheep" now and then, neither Hagrid nor Draco is likely to mention it, even if they know. I don't see that the heritability of character traits and the wrongness of racism and prejudice are connected. To say "all ---- are alike" is hurtful, regardless of how much diversity there happens to be within a particular group. Harry really doesn't know much about the people in the other Houses. If he got to know them better, mightn't we find that in truth Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, and even Slytherins are quite as diverse as the Gryffindors? Pippin From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 18:21:51 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:21:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Mirror of Erised/potion test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205182151.99170.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47787 In addition to bboy_mn's very sarcastic (and entertaining!) assessment of how difficult the PS tasks were, let's not forget that Quirrel got through them with inside information. Obviously he knew about the troll, since it was his contribution, and he eliminated that obstacle for the Trio. Anybody who didn't know about the troll ahead of time could have been killed before they even knew what was in there. Presumably any teacher who was contributing to the protections would have been above suspicion, so they probably all had at least some idea of what the other teachers were providing. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that Quirrel would have had time to prepare beforehand. Let's not take too much glory away from our beloved Trio . On a related topic, I've always wondered how the chess game was an example of Transfiguration. Transfiguration means changing one object into another. What did McGonnagal change into chess pieces? Is this connection from canon, or is this a theory that originated on this (or another) list? I could imagine somebody (not necessarily McGonnagal) Engorgio-ing normal wizard chess pieces, and then giving the white ones some brains, but that's not Transfiguration. Sherry (who just bought the Wizard Chess set and lost to her 6-year-old daughter as she was teaching her how to play chess - does anybody know if there's a computer chess game available that's based on HP, as in with animated pieces that clobber each other? If not, somebody really should market one) ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From mo.hue at web.de Thu Dec 5 18:22:01 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:22:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Sirius and The Prank... In-Reply-To: <68.29a6d0b9.2b20c0e9@aol.com> References: <68.29a6d0b9.2b20c0e9@aol.com> Message-ID: <4j2vuush6lcqp27c1vcf62jv0o0b6h2k1h@4ax.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47788 On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:47:05 EST, Lynx412 at aol.com wrote: > I agree that we don't know all there is to know about The Prank. A lot >of what's been said doesn't add up. I like Ellen's suggestion that Peter may >have been behind it. My biggest question, though, is why was Snape harassing >and following them? The implication, that the relationships resemble that of >the current trio, is Snape = Malfoy. But still doesn't explain why, aside >from House hostility. Harry & Draco have a family history and background that >triggers their actions. We don't know anything about Snape's familiar background. Maybe he comes from an old wizarding family, too. When asked where all the money came from that Harry inherited, JKR has once said that James came from a wealthy family and didn't have to work for a living. We have no information on James' family at all (yet), therefore it's very difficult to guess where that animosity actually came from. ----- Original Message ----- From: "theresnothingtoit" > > I think the text implies that Snape did *not* know Lupin was a > > werewolf, although I think this is a bit of a plot hole. Dicentra, > do > > you mean Snape could have tattled to the other students? The staff > > obviously knew already about Lupin's condition. > > This is what has been niggling me since I read PoA. After the Prank > why the hell didn't Snape tell anyone that Lupin was a werewolf. > What the devil did Dumbledore say to him that stoped Snape from even > hinting the idea to a fellow Slytherin. I think Dumbledore is an authority, and he was headmaster of the school then, too. I always thought he might have told Snape he would get expelled if he told anyone. Snape strikes me as someone who is obsessed with rules (a bit like Percy) and who has a pronounced sense for hierarchy. I guess you must be like that to join someone like Voldemort whom you would have to obey without questioning. And at school, Dumbledore was the highest authority. As much as I dislike Snape, I can't see him disobeying an order from Dumbledore himself or even not taking it seriously. And Dumbledore certainly didn't do it to save Sirius' skin (although I believe he didn't consider the prank as attempted murder), but he did it for Lupin. After all, he had admitted him to Hogwarts to ensure he would get an education. If anyone had known Lupin was a werewolf, he would have had to send him away. So I guess he briefed everyone who was involved about what not to do and about the potential consequences of disobeying. > But Snape says nothing. Why? Is he ashamed to admit that a > Griffindor saved his life, but he could easly deny this if it came > up. Who would his class mates believe? *If* it came up, he would certainly not like to admit that a Gryffindor saved his life. After all, Dumbledore told Harry at the end of PS that Snape could never forgive James for saving his life. While it might be embarassing for Snape to be saved by his most hated ennemy, the life debt this involves in the wizarding world surely makes it even worse. And then James has the guts to die before he could repay him. I think that's what makes him hate Harry so much on one hand and trying to save *his* life on the other. > I was shocked at this answer that Sirius gave. Yes giving him the > scare probably served him right for trying to get them expelled but > putting his life in serious danger - no. I do not believe that MWPP > are entirly innocent in this matter anyway. What had the two rival > houses done to each other to create such violent responses. Has anyone put forward that MWPP were innocent in this matter? Most of the time, it is discussed whether Snape was an innocent victim here or not. I don't think it's a question of innocence, just if it can be seen as cold blooded attempt at murder from a sixteen year old boy, and many of them aren't very sensitive at this age without being born criminels. Dumbledore doesn't see it as such, although this can be interpreted differently. What is interesting in this regard is Snape's reaction to Dumbledore's statement, "My memory is as good as ever, Severus". Snape isn't ordinarily a person not knowing what to reply, but this shuts him up. So he might in fact have some bodies in his closet we haven't heard about yet. And while I don't see Sirius as "innocent" here (irresponsible, foolish, immature -yes, but not a murderer), Snape doesn't seem to be innocent either. As for the rivalry between the two houses, I think this is going back to Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin. Unfortunately, we only have those two generations as a sample, but it is still going on, now we have Harry and his friends against Draco and his pals. Maybe there have been similar constellations in almost every generation of pupils. Of course this is just a thought. I don't believe the problems between purebloods and Muggle born wizards are new. Monika From grega126 at aol.com Thu Dec 5 18:28:39 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:28:39 -0000 Subject: Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual talent or sheer dumb luck Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47789 Rereading GoF, it becomes all sorts of apparent during the duel that Voldemort is a much better wizard than Harry is. By which I mean he's what, 60, 70 years old? He had about 40 years to study magic before he disappeared, Harry by the end of book 7 will have had 7 years. Everytime he's escaped from Voldemort thus far I'd chock it up to dumb luck: his mother's protection, using the Basilisk fang on the diary, using the summoning charm to run away. The only thing that implies to me that Harry may be able to defeat Voldemort through talent is b/c he was able to force the beam into Voldemort's wand, something Voldemort, even though he likely had no idea what was going on, realized he didn't want that beam enter his wand & Harry did it anyways. So the title remains. What do you guys think? Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual Magical talent or Sheer Dumb Luck? From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Dec 5 18:46:37 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:46:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual talent or sheer dumb luck/ Sirius's remorse Message-ID: <14674829.1039113997144.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47790 greg_a126 writes: > The only thing that implies to me that Harry may be able to defeat
> Voldemort through talent is b/c he was able to force the beam into
> Voldemort's wand, something Voldemort, even though he likely had no
> idea what was going on, realized he didn't want that beam enter his
> wand & Harry did it anyways.
>
> So the title remains. What do you guys think? Harry Beats
> Voldemort: Actual Magical talent or Sheer Dumb Luck?
>
> I think this goes along with the "What is it about Harry Potter?" question that was posed. I can't quite put my finger on it, whether it was a prophecy, a dream, something. To use a Matrix analogy, I think he is "The One." Now, before you jump on me, finish reading. Go back to the Matrix for a moment, if Neo hadn't made certain choices he may have not become "The One." Same thing goes for Harry. Whether it's an "Heir of Gryffindor" thing or something else, if he had made different choices (shaking Draco's hand and saying thanks instead of shutting him up by saying he could tell the wrong sort for himself, for example) he would not be "The One." He may still not be there yet, but with appropriate choices he will ultimately come out on top regardless of how much experience Voldemort has compared to Harry's seven years. He's got more behind him than just his own learned magic. Something bigger than him, bigger than Voldemort. Call it fate, if you will, but I don't think it was mearly coincidence that he and Voldemort ended up with brother wands. Which has saved his neck once already. Now, on the topic of Sirius and remorse, or lack thereof: I think the entire prank revolves around something we don't understand because we don't know all of the circumstances. I think it stems from a history between he and Snape that preceded Hogwarts. Casting Snape as the Draco of the Maurader's years doesn't figure in. I really doubt Harry, Ron or Hermione would set up a prank to kill Draco. There's more to it than what went on at Hogwarts, in my opinion. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 19:06:29 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Orphanages (WAS Hagrid's Personality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205190629.34769.qmail@web21409.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47791 Shane wrote (after his wonderful treatise of Hagrid) > There's also > the possibility that there are some wizarding orphanages. The WW must have > orphans or children who for one reason or another need to be taken into > care. Is this all dealt with within the community, or is there a wizarding > social services? maybe Hagrid was briefly in an orphanage or with a foster > family? Certainly the VoldeWars would have necessitated some kind of orphan-care arrangement if there had been none before, although that would have been after Hagrid's time. But something else occurred to me in reading this. Why would Tom Riddle have been sent back to the *Muggle* orphanage if Hogwarts were closed? I seem to recall that he normally spent summers at Hogwarts; is that right? In any case, once he was admitted to Hogwarts, why couldn't arrangements have been made for him to stay in a Wizarding orphanage? He would have fit in much better there, and maybe Voldemort never would have existed. But then, maybe I've just answered Shane's question: there are no Wizarding orphanages, or Tom Riddle would have been sent to one over summers; or else there are now because of all the orphans due to the VoldeWars, but there were none in Tom Riddle's time and therefore in Hagrid's time. Any thoughts? Sherry (who seems to be feeling rather chatty today) ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 19:29:02 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:29:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual talent or sheer dumb luck In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205192902.75436.qmail@web13005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47792 greg_a126 wrote: Rereading GoF, it becomes all sorts of apparent during the duel that Voldemort is a much better wizard than Harry is. By which I mean he's what, 60, 70 years old? He had about 40 years to study magic before he disappeared, Harry by the end of book 7 will have had 7 years. Everytime he's escaped from Voldemort thus far I'd chock it up to dumb luck: his mother's protection, using the Basilisk fang on the diary, using the summoning charm to run away. Me: You make a good point about Voldemort's age and experience, but you also missed a few. Harry has not escaped each time entirely by sheer dumb luck. He has made choices, important choices, which is what Dumbledore says is the difference between him and Voldemort, despite similar childhoods. That seems to be the theme running through the books; history doesn't HAVE to repeat itself, we can make choices and overcome what seem to be insurmountable odds or a sure path in a particular direction. As long as you're Harry. There are other characters that don't seem to have the potential or desire to change--the Dursleys, the Malfoys, etc. I don't expect JKR to change that. Sadly, that contradicts her main message somewhat and waters it down. Still, to get back to it--Harry made certain choices, and sometimes the consequences of those choices were "lucky" developments that led him out of danger, but I still maintain that if he hadn't made those choices, those developments wouldn't have occurred, so calling it "luck" is something of a potato/potahto argument. Was it luck for him to refuse to give the stone to Quirrell? Or was it amazingly gutsy for an eleven-year-old to refuse to give in to an adult wizard with the kind of power Quirrell had at that time? Quirrell could have crushed him like a bug, but Harry stood up to him anyway. Was it luck for him to have the nerve to go into the Chamber to begin with? Luck for him to be loyal to Dumbledore? No; that's just who he is. Ginny was down there, a girl who idolized him and who was his best friend's sister. He felt a responsibility, even at the age of twelve. He was a Parselmouth and had the ability to open the chamber (that might be called luck, if you like, but he didn't HAVE to use this ability--he could have run away, like Lockhart wanted to). Was it luck for him to have the presence of mind to stab the diary with the fang? I find that the least plausible thing to call luck--that came out of the blue for me, frankly. I thought it was very clever. Perhaps he's letting Hermione intimidate him and he'd get better marks if he had more confidence. Was it luck for him to conjure the Patronus in PoA? No, it was complex, advanced magic that he'd worked hard to perfect. He was showing his future power with this, IMO. Even Hermione was impressed, and that's not easy. Was it luck for him to perform the summoning charm to get the cup and escape with Cedric's body? Not at all; first of all, when faced with the problem of having Cedric's heavy body already and the cup rather distant, his brain lit upon the solution of the summoning charm to solve the problem. That's his quick thinking, not luck. Then there's the fact that, once again, a spell that he worked long and hard to perfect served him well. Another sign of his future power--a good wizard can think on his feet and select the right spell for the occasion, and he's practiced so that he can perform it competantly. Harry comfortably fulfills this criteria, more so, in fact, than the other Champions, who frequently made bad decisions about how to approach the tasks. The real difference between Harry and the assorted villains (Quirrell, Malfoy, Voldemort/Riddle, Crouch and Pettigrew) is that they made certain choices and he made different choices. The villains are very competant, even Pettigrew, who mastered the Animagus Transfiguration while still in school, avoided detection for years and performed the ritual to reembody his master. But while Voldemort and his servants (especially Crouch) have an eye on glory and power, Harry is not full of himself and does not wish for anything but a nice, quiet life. While all of the villains' mistakes can basically be boiled down to hubris, the one that stands out the most is Voldemort's fall, when he was almost destroyed by the protection Harry received from his mother. In stark contrast, Harry is remarkably lacking in hubris; it almost makes him a little unreal right now, but hopefully JKR will explore his character a little more and he will be a little better rounded and less perfect. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From melclaros at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 19:33:19 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:33:19 -0000 Subject: the Mirror of Erised/potion test In-Reply-To: <20021205182151.99170.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47793 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Sherry Garfio wrote: > On a related topic, I've always wondered how the chess game was an example of > Transfiguration. Transfiguration means changing one object into another. What > did McGonnagal change into chess pieces? Is this connection from canon, or is > this a theory that originated on this (or another) list? I could imagine > somebody (not necessarily McGonnagal) Engorgio-ing normal wizard chess pieces, > and then giving the white ones some brains, but that's not Transfiguration. Thank you! This has bugged the heck out of me for the longest time! This isn't transfiguration at all, but is really the same thing as the Charmed keys! I haven't been able to figure out how the chess obstacle fits transfiguration. I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning behind this myself. The Devil's Snare was obvious, The Troll would be fairly obvious, The keys were quite blatantly Charmed and if you couldn't figure out who set up the Potions/Logic test you might as well just give up on the spot. But I just don't "get" how transfiguration = giant chess board. > Sherry (who just bought the Wizard Chess set and lost to her 6-year- old > daughter as she was teaching her how to play chess - does anybody know if > there's a computer chess game available that's based on HP, as in with animated > pieces that clobber each other? If not, somebody really should market one) Years ago my son (now 12) played something called Battle Chess on the PC. It was "totally barbaric!" (cringes with embarassment as I remember yelling at husband for buying such a game for a child!)and I remember it springing to mind when I read about Wizard Chess. I have no idea if such a game still exists but I'd be surprised if it didn't. Of course this was before HP and so it wasn't technically "Wizard Chess". I think it had different characters you could choose from. Good Luck. We have the HP chess set as well. Melpomene who really hopes this post actually makes it to the board! > > From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 19:53:45 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:53:45 -0000 Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: <20021205141541.49377.qmail@web40508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47794 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Maria Kirilenko wrote: > MARIA: > Hi, this is my first post... > > I was flipping through PS/SS the other day and found some things that might be mistakes. > > 1. How could Fluffy bite Snape's leg? Fluffy is supposed to be a dog that "took up the entire space between the floor and the ceiling." Wouldn't it be rather hard for it to bite Snape's *leg*? If I were that dog, I'd probably just bite his head off. -end this part- bboy_mn: That assumes he was standing up, and standing under the dog. What if he had fallen down? What if he stumbled as he was scrambling toward the door? While your point is valid, it's not hard to imagine potential alternatives where the dog could have grabbed his leg. It's also possible that Fluffy is more growl than bite. That is, while he is undoubtedly dangerous, he may not be as vicious or deadly as he seems. Maybe Fluffy thought Snape had come to play, and chewing Snape's leg off was Fluffy's way of being playful. -end bboy_mn this part- MARIA cont.: > > 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. > > Are these really mistakes, or am I imagining things? > > Maria bboy_mn responds: If it hit her on the BACK of the head then, in a dynamic game like Quidditch, it is likely that she was moving forward when it happened. That forward movement would have softened the blow. Also, it's not clear that it hit her square and blunt on the back of the head (from memory), so it may have been a glancing blow. Also, wizards and witches seem very resilient. Neville fell from 50ft and only broke his wrist. Harry fell from a similar height (onto soft wet ground) and was unhurt. He was unconcious because of the Dementor, not because of the fall. That's the equivalent of falling off a FIVE story building. Hagrid also commented that Lily and James couldn't possibly have been killed in a car accident (paraphrased) with the implication that a car accident wouldn't have been enough to kill them. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Dec 5 19:54:07 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:54:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some mistakes in book1??? Message-ID: <140.4470a8a.2b2108df@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47795 Maria: > 1. How could Fluffy bite Snape's leg? Fluffy is supposed to be a dog that > "took up the entire space between the floor and the ceiling." Wouldn't it > be rather hard for it to bite Snape's *leg*? If I were that dog, I'd > probably just bite his head off. > That's a good question! I'd never thought of that. Moreover, how did he *get to* his leg without biting through his robes, which should have been a bit noticible when he turned up with the other staff members in the girls' toilets. (In fact this makes even less sense in his non-canonical CWMNBM garb). I suppose, to be fair, he might have done a "reparo" spell on them. Now the boring answer, is simply that JKR hadn't thought of it either. The alternative is that this is canon evidence of his gymnastic ability as he was obviously walking on his hands, thus raising his legs to the height of Fluffy's heads and exposing them simultaneously. *Why* was he walking on his hands, you ask? Do you really want to know? Well, it was an experiment to see if that was the way to get past him. In standing on his hands, his robes would obviously fall over his head. Now, as Douglas Adams fans all know, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is so mind bogglingly stupid that it thinks if you can't see it, then it can't see you, so Snape may have been testing to see if the same applied to three-headed dogs. This was a spur of the moment thing, you understand, so he had come out without anything to blindfold himself with. Or perhaps he was just trying to confuse him by not looking human. Alternatively, we don't actually know what wizards wear under their robes, so he might have been trying to, err, *frighten* him into submission. ~Eloise PS - Maria, I think you're probably right! :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Thu Dec 5 20:23:50 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:23:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The most fundamental question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47796 In a message dated 12/4/2002 11:58:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, michelle.pagan at colorado.edu writes: > > But why? Does anyone have any theory for that? Because otherwise, I just > don't understand the WW's preoccupation with keeping Harry so safe. Yes, > I know, Voldie is trying to kill him, but when I think of the terror in > Cornelius Fudge's voice when they apparently don't know where Harry is in > the beginning of PoA, it seems as if there is more to it: > Well, besides the obvious (he's the main character so lots of important things have to happen to him), I think we can see a similarity in the WW and our muggle world in this. Harry really isn't inherently special, he is very talented and comes from a great family, but he wasn't born extremely powerful. He just was saved by his mother's sacrifice. He "defeated" Voldemort, so he became instantly special. He's a lot like Elian Gonzales. What did America have to gain by this one little boy? Not much, but he became famous, a household name, because he *represented* a cause. I think that Harry is like that to the WW, he *represents* the victory over the dark forces. It is to his credit that he can actually live up to his celebrity status. I don't think Voldemort really had a vested interest in killing baby Harry, but he is a reletavely smart evil overlord. Rather than having a son who grows up with the sole purpose of avenging his father (like Inigo Montoya...) He'd rather kill a baby. He's also probably rather mosogynistic, and doesn't think that Lilly is a threat. She is, after all, just a mudblood. And, upon thinking about that, I think that he would have killed her anyway, because who is Voldemort to care about a muggle-born? -Scheherazade [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mo.hue at web.de Thu Dec 5 20:27:16 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:27:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: PTSD (was: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2fdvuu8m4b94ebthidre42u1ma783446e7@4ax.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47797 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy" > When we do see evidence of anxiety disorders in the Potterverse, it's > usually in a very minor character (Mrs. Mason, and her severe phobia > of birds), or in an unsympathetic character (Peter Pettigrew.) Hm, I admit that I haven't looked at Pettigrew like this before, but I might have been too focused on the "good guys". While Voldemort certainly strikes me as someone out of the range of "normality", Pettigrew did not. > When discussing the time frame of Sirius' symptoms, a theory was put > forth that Sirius was traumatized by the Potters' deaths, not by his > own suffering. I said he'd have to be a saint for that to be the > case. > In response, Monika said: > > no offence meant, but you obviously haven't understood > > what causes PTSD or ASD and how it works. You definitely > > don't need to be a saint to get traumatized by the death > > of someone else > > I was saying that Sirius would have to be a saint to be ONLY > traumatized by the Potters' deaths, and not by his own imprisonment. Okay, I seem to have misread the quote (mea culpa) Of course Azkaban has affected him at least as much. So I should have rather blamed the original poster. (Makes mental note: read more carefully and take care to quote correctly.) > On the subject of timing, Natasha had said > > "It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have PTSD. I completely agree > > that if he did have it in PoA he made the recovery of the century > > by GoF. I can't imagine anyone getting over PTSD that quickly." > > Monika, I don't see where you *or* Natasha has cited any articles on > the speed of recovery from PTSD, so Natasha could just as easily say > this to you. Granted. > I don't expect a person with PTSD to show symptoms *all the time*. > However, I would say that Sirius doesn't show symptoms *at all* in > GOF. he is very different in GoF from how he was in PoA. Okay, maybe we really shouldn't discuss this because it's a novel and you are right that one can only look at fictional characters to see if they act because of plot constraints or because they are supposed to be real persons. ;-) But I still think both should fit together. I can claim that the plot required Sirius to show symptoms in PoA and not in GoF, but this will not satisfy you. I can't see that he has really recovered, while you say he can't have PTSD or he would still have to show symptoms. I think from an analytical POV, we might both be right. I'll try to explain what I mean, but it might still sound a bit confusing. Good story telling also includes not cluttering up a story with unnecessary elements, it makes a novel drag. Without wanting to deflect from our subject, there are also lots and lots of details that have been discussed in the past, like why do we never see the students say a prayer at table, or why don't we ever see Harry giving *Hermione* a present instead of always the other way round. There are more of those things that a lot of people would like to see because in real life it would have to be so. But they are left out because they don't advance the plot, and Rowling's books are extremely tightly plotted. There aren't any superfluous descriptions, or very few of them. Other novels are not as tightly plotted, and there you may find those details you will probably like to read about, while other people would find them boring and unnecessary. To come back to the point I wanted to make: we actually don't know what is going on "behind the scenes" of GoF. We are all here because we like to read between the lines of those books (or am I mistaken), and to me Sirius doesn't make the impression he has recovered. He looks better, but it's never stated he is really healthy again. Like we don't hear about eventual nightmares he might have. We can only see what Harry sees, and we can interpret his observations. On a positive note, this is just the thing that makes it so much fun to discuss these books, it's the loose ends, all the details that are left open to the imagination of the reader, something that not many books can provide. > > I've already said that the time frame does fit better for an acute > stress response than for PTSD. However, the question being discussed > before was whether Sirius was suffering from *PTSD*. So, that is what > I was addressing. Well, doesn't it automatically become PTSD if the symptoms persist for more than a month or two? (Might be a stupid question.) Or is it still ASD if the trauma itself hasn't ended, even if it lasts for years? > b) Does Sirius show the symptoms of PTSD (or Acute Stress Disorder), > particularly anxiety? > > OK, fine, I went back and read them again. In GoF, yes, Sirius is > upset when he sees Harry, but Harry had been in mortal danger and > another student had been killed, so I don't see Sirius' response as > being pathological or showing excessive fear. I counted this as reminiscent of what he had experienced the night when James and Lily died. He is shaking with reaction, I interpreted as fear that he might lose Harry, too. I'd interpret the > "deadened, haunted look" in GoF as probably a sign of depression, not > anxiety. (Depression often occurs in people with PTSD, but is not a > diagnostic criterion.) No, it's not. Of course this is a valid interpretation, too. > > In the Shrieking Shack scene, JKR uses a huge amount of emotional > terms in describing Sirius' behavior. Well, I guess you can interpret those in two ways: either she wanted to show that, despite being on the good side, he is still a horrible person, or that he actually isn't entirely sane. > Of all those emotional moments in the Shack, the only time Sirius > really seems worried to me is when Snape threatens to feed him to the > dementors. His fear here seems to be a reasonable response, not a > pathological one. Even if one wants to count both hiding his face and > being startled when called "Mr. Black" as fear responses (and I tend > to doubt that either of them are), anxiety certainly isn't his > predominant emotion. Well, to me he seemed also worried when Harry threatened to kill him. I definitely got the impression that he took him seriously. After all, he couldn't know what Harry would do to him (certainly not AK, but there are other ways, as has been discussed in the past). And I think this was part of what caused him to sit on the bed for a while without participating in what was going on. Of course there was also the shock of Lupin suddenly turning up, and maybe he also realized what he had done to Harry. And when Snape threatened to feed him to the dementors, he seemed more than a bit afraid to me. > I guess I'm still refusing, because I see Sirius displaying quite a > lot of anger and a fair amount of evil grinning, but not a whole lot > of anxiety. Yes, JKR can do a good job of portraying PTSD (look at > Frank Bryce), but who says she intended Sirius to have PTSD? I don't > believe she's ever said anything about that. AFAIK, no one has ever asked. I'd love to have the opportunity to do so. I also counted his anger as a symptom, though. > 2) Is Past Trauma an Excuse for Violent Behavior? > > As I've said before, this is a philosophical question, a question of > values, rather than a factual question. I feel violence is justified > in order to defend oneself or someone else. Period. The idea that > having experienced trauma in the past is an excuse for traumatizing > others doesn't fit my value system at all. This is certainly a philosophical question. I think "excuse" might be the wrong word here. What I want to express is that my value system prevents me from judging it with standards of right or wrong. It doesn't mean that I condone any kind of violence, though. But in Sirius' case I say it would be wrong to punish him for a behaviour that was caused by unjust punishment in the first place. As for defending himself or others, he tried to defend Harry. You might object he could have gone straight to Dumbledore and tell him what really happened, but I can't see him doing this. He had no reason to think Dumbledore would believe him more now than he had twelve years ago. He distrusted everyone, and yes, I guess he thought he could very well handle it alone. Where could he have sought for help? > I'm not saying that Harry has PTSD. Okay, so I misunderstood you. To me, it read like this. > I'm saying that in the > Potterverse, people can suffer all sorts of traumas without becoming > violent. In particular, Harry suffers a great deal but still tries to > avoid violence. As the hero of the books, Harry to a large extent > serves as the model of how a person should be. This implies that JKR > believes that the idea person avoids violence, even after being > traumatized. How is doing some reading about PTSD supposed to change > this? I already said I completely misunderstood this. The theory that Harry had PTSD was also discussed (more than once I think) in the past, and I don't see it. I won't object that Harry as a hero serves as a model of how a person should be, but a book populated by model characters would be pretty boring. At least to me. I can't see why this "model" behavior should extend to other characters, and Sirius was definitely written as a good guy. So she could have written him as a friendly godfather, who just turned up after twelve years. But she didn't. Maybe we will know the reasons for this in a later book. Or maybe it was really just a good plot device, but I still don't buy it. > I'm not sure what you mean by "children never get violent." There have > been a number of murderers who are younger than Harry, unfortunately. Well, then there's the question what made them become murderers. Was it always past trauma? > I *definitely* believe that PTSD exists. But, I also believe that > behaving violently generally indicates a character flaw. The two > beliefs are not mutually exclusive. > > Here's why I keep referring to the fact that most people with PTSD > aren't violent. Suppose we have a group of people with PTSD. Some of > them will be violent; most will not be. So, how do we explain these > individual differences in violence level? It's not as if some > stressors routinely produce violence, and others don't. (If you've > read something to the contrary, Monika, I'd be very interested to hear > about it.) What I understood is that people suffering from combat PTSD have higher rates of violence than someone who has been traumatized by some other event. Violence seems to generate more violence, but then, I might be mistaken. > It's not as if all the people with severe PTSD are > violent, and all the people with mild PTSD are non-violent. So, it > seems likely to me that pre-existing differences in violent tendencies > provide the most likely explanation of why some people with PTSD are > violent, and others aren't. Okay, but I would still say it also depends on the stressor. > > Now again, we may be running into a philosophical difference here. > Suppose we have a person with a fairly high tendency towards violence. > (Yeah, I know there's no real way to measure this, but suppose there > were.) Now, suppose this person experiences trauma which results in > PTSD. Suppose the person becomes violent, and we know for sure that > it was the combination of the person's original violent tendencies and > the PTSD that caused the violence. (Again, there would be no real way > to tell this, but suppose there was some way to tell exactly why the > violence happened.) Monika, you seem to be saying that the person > should not be held responsible at all for the violence, because the > violence wouldn't have happened without the PTSD. I say the person > *should* be held responsible for the violence, because the violence > wouldn't have happened without the underlying violent tendency. (If I > were a judge, I'd be willing to consider the PTSD as a mitigating > factor that reduces the punishment, though.) We have different views > of what constitutes moral responsibility. This concerns opinion, not > fact. I can see your point, but it's true, I have a different view of this. Does this make me morally corrupt? I think not. It's against my sense of justice. But then I ask you if you really think it would help Sirius to inflict more punishment on him. I really don't think so. Locking him up again, even without dementors (and what else could you do?) would do him more damage than good IMHO. > So, Monika, you are saying that if Sirius had been female, choking > Harry and so forth would have been wrong, but since he's male, it's > OK? I didn't say that. I was implying it might not have happened, but if it had, there's no difference in my perception. And again, I might be utterly wrong here, but I can't see it as either right or wrong, it was IMO a reflex he couldn't control. I can't see how this can be considered with standards of right or wrong. So we're back to the philosophical question here. > That *no* women or children with PTSD are violent seems like an > exaggeration to me. However, I definitely agree that men with PTSD > are more likely than women or young children with PTSD to be violent. > But, even in people *without* PTSD, men are more likely to be violent > than are women and children. My explanation for this pattern is that > men are more likely to have violent tendencies than women. I see it as males are more aggressive than females in most species. But this is not a character flaw, but has in general the function to ensure the survival of the species (protecting the females and the young). This "violent" tendency is still present in modern humans, although in modern society it has lost most of its meaning, at least in western countries. So, I seem to say just the same thing as you do, that men are more likely to have violent tendencies than women, but I don't see it as a character flaw, rather as a maladaptation, a leftover from the time when civilization didn't exist. > Monika also said that I: > > think people should be punished for something they actually can't > > control. > > No, I don't think that. But, I think it's rare for violence to be > truly out of a person's control. There are many men who beat their > wives and say that they couldn't control it, yet, for some strange > reason, these same men never attack their bosses or random large men > on the street. This suggests that the violence *is* under some > control, because these men don't act violently unless they think they > can get away with it. If Sirius had attacked Fudge, or the dementors, > or lunged at Lupin when Lupin had a wand and he didn't, then I'd be > more inclined to think that Sirius had no control over his violent > behavior. Well, I don't think it would be a good idea for anyone to attack a Dementor, and I don't see why Sirius should lunge at Lupin, but he did lunge at Snape when he tied Lupin up. Does that count? It always struck me as something that someone in his right mind wouldn't do. Sirius is supposed to be intelligent, that's clearly stated, so he should know he has no chance against Snape when Snape has a wand and he does not, and also that he is in no physical condition to knock Snape out or overpower him by sheer force and violence. It just doesn't make sense. It might make sense for a violent guy, but I still don't see Sirius like this. > > I suspect this debate isn't resolvable, because it is not really about > factual matters. (We actually agree on things such as that the death > of a friend can cause PTSD; it was a misunderstanding that made it > seem that we disagreed on this.) The debate is actually over things > like what constitutes responsibility, how we interpret Sirius' > behavior in the books (anxious or not), what we think Sirius is doing > during the periods (especially in GoF) when we don't see him, and > whether we want to analyze Sirius' behavior as it appears in the > books, or as it might have been written if JKR wasn't constrained by > the plot. These aren't questions that depend on facts. Okay, I can't very well object to this reasoning, so I suggest we bury the hatchet (if there ever was one, no, I am not a violent person). ;-) We interpret was is actually written and what we read between the lines in a different way. Like I said above, if JKR hadn't left so many details unsaid, there wouldn't be as much traffic on this list, and people wouldn't stay as long or keep coming back. > > We might get further if we changed the question. For example, we > could ask whether people think that Sirius is good, or evil. Okay, this might be a more reasonable and fruitful approach, and I guess the opinions will differ as much as they differ about Snape. > I see > Sirius as flawed, but think that he is more good than bad. I don't > think his violence is justified, I think he lacks empathy, and I > suspect he was something of a bully when he was young. I certainly don't think he's a saint, and someone without flaws isn't very interesting in my mind, but I don't think he was a bully. That would put him in the same league with Dudley, and I just can't see that. Let me explain: Dudley seems to derive his "power" (sorry, I cannot think of a better word right now) from bullying other kids. He has buddies, we hear at least of one in PS (Pierce Polkiss), but I doubt he has really close friends, and all they do is bullying other kids together with Dudley. Well, at least Harry, to be precise. I can't see them as practical jokers, I doubt they can make anyone laugh. Sirius had at least one really close friend, he and James were like brothers. And Madam Rosmerta states in the pub that they always made her laugh when they came to the Three Broomsticks. And they are also compared to the Weasley twins (who are not bullies, although far from being "saints"). I don't know, but I am someone who has always preferred having only a few friends and at least one among them whom I can tell everything, instead of a whole bunch of people to party with, so I can identify with this. > By the way, I see Sirius and Snape as similar on the continuum of good > to evil -- both are flawed, but on balance are mostly good. I like > Snape while disliking Sirius, but this doesn't mean that I think Snape > is better morally. Well, for me it's the other way round: I dislike Snape while I like Sirius. One of the things I dislike most about Snape is his bullying those who are weaker than he is, namely his students. You say you wouldn't have liked Sirius if you had been at school with him, well I wouldn't have liked Snape if he had been my teacher. I guess I have been bullied myself too much at school to find anything sympathetic about him. And although we are far from having seen all about Snape so far, he seems to like to bully those who can't get back at him. And gets away with it. Not to mention that in the Shrieking Shack, he didn't only want to feed Sirius to the Dementors (which could be explained by him believing Sirius was a mass murderer), but also Lupin. It didn't sound to me like an idle threat. > I said: > > Do you read a lot of science fiction? Stories that deal with > > artificial life in the future show complex behaviour in simulations > > and robots > > I've read both science fiction and philosophy on this topic. If > machines are ever developed that show as much autonomy and > intelligence as humans, there will be a real question as to whether > these machines are sentient and should be given rights. One major > theory of sentience is that it's essentially a byproduct of thinking, > and that intelligence without sentience is therefore impossible. Well, that would certainly be a question. Would it be wrong to switch such a robot off? Maybe. But it still bothers me that you actually can, without harming him. Like it bothers me that the Fat Lady can be restored like a normal painting, while ghosts have to be treated like living beings. > > Sherry objected that perhaps the portrait people are *not* sentient, > because Sir Cadogan seems unintelligent. I'd say that Sir Cadogan is > just supposed to be crazy. (In fact, Sherry, you point this outself > when you quoted Bill Weasley from GoF: "Is that picture of the mad > knight still around? Sir Cadogan?") Hm, this raises another question: if Bill asks if he is still around, this implies that he might not. I doubt he can "move" by himself, so, do wizards "dispose" of those portraits from time to time? What do they do with them then? If they are sentient, they can't very well toss them in the dustbin, can they. Which confirms my opinion that they are actually paintings with a highly sophisticated charm on them, but paintings nevertheless. We know that the wizards can enchant things to show some kind of intelligence, after Sirius broke into the castle for the first time, Flitwick charmed the entrance doors to recognize Sirius by showing them a foto. This is just too weird. Then there's Mr Weasley's car who is now living in the forbidden forest on his own. I know it can't talk, but it rescued Harry and Ron from the spiders in CoS and then drove off to the forest again. > Hey, where were all of you back when we were discussing > Sociopath!Sirius? ;-) Cosily at home, making no noise, pretending we weren't a member of this list, I suppose. :-) > I think there's two ways of viewing Sirius. One view looks at his > deep remorse over the Potters' deaths, and concludes that he's a > caring person who takes responsibility -- perhaps too much > responsibility -- for his actions. In this view, if Sirius doesn't > show remorse for an action, either he did nothing wrong (e.g., Snape > had been awful and deserved to die, or perhaps Snape was really in no > danger), or the circumstances simply have prevented him from > exhibiting his remorse so far (e.g., in the Shack, he had no chnace to > apologize.) > > I have a different view. I think Sirius cares about a few people > (mainly the Potters.) He feels bad when something bad happens to > them. But, as for people outside this small circle, well, as Rebecca > said, he feels they can just go to hell. If he's feeling especially > angry, then the circle of those he cares about shrinks to nothing > (e.g., he chokes Harry.) I think this view is the most consistent > with the evidence about Sirius that we've been shown so far, but I > think the first view has not been ruled out, and is quite possibly the > one JKR intends. If you see him like this, then what would very well motivate him to participate in the war against Voldemort? When Peter asked him what was to be gained by refusing him, he replies, "only innocent lives, Peter". I can't believe he meant "James, Lily, Harry and Remus" by those "innocent lives", and the rest of the wizarding world could go to hell. At the end of GoF he is also ready to fight Voldemort again. Only for Harry? This seems a bit far fetched. Someone who lives on an island and does only care about a very small portion of the world won't join a cause that involves doing something for the whole community. Just IMHO. Monika From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 20:34:28 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:34:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205203428.95850.qmail@web21414.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47798 My, I *am* feeling chatty today... Maria Kirilenko wrote: > I was flipping through PS/SS the other day and found some things > that might be mistakes. > > 1. How could Fluffy bite Snape's leg? Fluffy is supposed to be a dog > that "took up the entire space between the floor and the ceiling." > Wouldn't it be rather hard for it to bite Snape's *leg*? If I were > that dog, I'd probably just bite his head off. bboy_mn replied: > That assumes he was standing up, and standing under the dog. Now me: It also assumes that he was *bitten*. I don't recall ever hearing any details about the mauling. Maybe Fluffy clawed him. Maria continued: > > 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a > Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) > on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since > Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. bboy_mn responds: > Also, wizards and witches seem very resilient. Neville fell from 50ft > and only broke his wrist. Harry fell from a similar height (onto soft > wet ground) and was unhurt. He was unconcious because of the Dementor, > not because of the fall. That's the equivalent of falling off a FIVE > story building. Me again: Total nitpick here, but I seem to recall that we learn after the fact (from Hermione?) that Dumbledore used a charm to slow Harry's fall before he hit the ground. It does seem, however, that wizards are much more resiliant than Muggles. bboy_mn again: > Hagrid also commented that Lily and James couldn't > possibly have been killed in a car accident (paraphrased) with the > implication that a car accident wouldn't have been enough to kill them. Now me: I took Hagrid's statement to mean that attributing the Potters' death to a car crash is blasphemous, considering that they really died fighting the most powerful Dark wizard of our time, and that Harry's survival is so much more significant than a baby in a well-constructed car seat surviving the crash that killed his parents. The car crash explanation trivializes their death. It doesn't even acknowledge their sacrafice: if the Dursleys had come up with a story about how they got caught in the middle of an armed robbery and Lily took a bullet to save Harry, then at least that part of Harry's past would have been preserved for him. Hagrid says this in the midst of discovering that Harry knows nothing about his parents or about wizards in general, and is quite worked up at this point over the Dursleys' deceit. They deprived Harry not only of knowledge of magic, but also of facts that would have lent Harry a sense of self-worth and of having been loved by his parents. Which, of course, is representative of their entire treatment of Harry. Again, I do agree that wizards seem very resiliant; I just read so much more into this particular statement of Hagrid's, especially after seeing Robbie Coltrane's portrayal of it (which was nearly identical to how I saw it in my head - I just *love* the casting of the movies so far). Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 20:07:30 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:07:30 -0000 Subject: WellAdjusted!Harry (was Re: Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual talent ...) In-Reply-To: <20021205192902.75436.qmail@web13005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47799 greg_a126 wrote: >Everytime he's escaped from Voldemort thus far I'd chock it up to dumb luck: his mother's protection, using the Basilisk fang on the diary, using the summoning charm to run away. > > > Barb: > You make a good point about Voldemort's age and experience, but you also missed a few. Harry has not escaped each time entirely by sheer dumb luck. He has made choices, important choices, which is what Dumbledore says is the difference between him and Voldemort, despite similar childhoods. [much snipped] I write: Yeah, I agree, it's not 'luck' nor strictly 'talent', but 'character', as Crouch!Moody put it during during the Imperius curse class in GoF. Barb: > While all of the villains' mistakes can basically be boiled down to hubris, the one that stands out the most is Voldemort's fall, when he was almost destroyed by the protection Harry received from his mother. In stark contrast, Harry is remarkably lacking in hubris; it almost makes him a little unreal right now, but hopefully JKR will explore his character a little more and he will be a little better rounded and less perfect. Me: Yes - Harry is remarkably well adjusted really, and (especially in light of my previous post concerning Lucius/Draco childhoods, attachment theory etc) I find that hard to grasp. Someone said recently that Harry had made choices to rise above his upbringing - but I can't see how he could have the capacity to make those choices, unless wizard psychology is fundamentally different. Only thing I can think of is that the magic invoked by his mother's death allowed him to psychologically survive the Dursleys (even though Harry didn't know about that consciously, the Dementors in PoA showed that he had deeply buried memories of it), as well as physically surviving Voldemort. Chthonia From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 20:17:41 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:17:41 -0000 Subject: Lucius-Voldemort / Draco-Death Eaters (was Re: Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47800 Way back on Monday, Steve/bboy_mn said: > jenny from ravenclaw said: >> There is definitely "a deeper character" to Draco, >> IMO. I'd like to see him stray from his father. >> How might he react to seeing Lucius kissing the >> hems of Voldemort? What if he decides to disagree >> with his father? and bboy_mn replied: > there will come a day of reckoning when Draco will > have to think for himself, then I think he will see > things in a different light. I do hope so! It would be so boring if Draco rode out the rest of the series as a cardboard-cutout evil/spoilt brat, especially after he's been so prominently in our faces so far. bboy_mn continued: >My own belief is that the first time Draco sees what >it truly means to be a Death Eater; Kowtowing to >Voldemort, grovelling on the floor, kissing V's >robe,I don't think it will look that appealing. I >think right now, Draco has this image of his father >being very powerful, a man who bows to no one, and >I think that's who Draco sees himself. Draco is >lord, in his own mind; Draco is not lorded over. >So when he discovers that being a Death Eater means >kissing V's (sorry) butt, his attitude will change. Hmmm. That depends on the exact nature of his father's relationship to Voldemort. All we know at the moment is that Lucius hates the Muggle-born (which straight away makes me wonder what he thinks of Voldemort, given that he knew at least enough about Tom Riddle to have the diary), and that his first response to being challenged by Voldemort was to try to smooth-talk his way out of it, rather than [literally] grovelling on the floor. I'd be surprised if he worships V ? more likely IMO that he found his reputation as an ex-DE useful in intimidating people, much as Draco does at school by bandying about his father's name. We don't have much idea of how Lucius speaks about Voldemort at home (though given Draco's loose tongue it's unlikely to be what he really thinks); assuming that Draco doesn't show up at a DE meeting there's no reason for him to know about the amount of kowtowing required. I don't think there's enough in canon to call this one either way ? hopefully it will become clearer in the next book. I saw a post elsewhere (can't remember where, but if the poster happens to be reading this, thanks ? it started off my thinking on the Malfoys...though OTOH maybe that's not such a good thing...she says, surveying the ruins of her social life ;-) which postulated that Voldemort was using Lucius to bankroll the operation, that Lucius was in the DE purely as an outlet for his racism (rather than for power, which he already had), and that Voldemort would eventually kill him when he became more of a threat than a tool. I'm not sure it would come to that ? given the Malfoy modus operandi I'm sure Lucius would be quite happy to wield influence indirectly, and would be unlikely to pose much threat to Voldemort as long as their aims don't diverge too much. But if that did happen, it would be very interesting to see how Draco reacted... bboy_mn concluded: >The next great revelation will be when he discovers >what murder, and torture really mean. When he hears >his victum scream and see real death for the first >time, he will suddenly realize that being a Death >Eater is not party, party, party. Two points: 1) Is there any indication so far that Draco *wants* to be a Death Eater? I think it's just as likely that he's mouthing off when he talks about the Dark Arts. If he was really into it, might he not have been in the merrie DE throng at the QWC, eager to prove himself? Sounds like there were plenty of others joining in, masks or no. And it's easy to say he could have gone to Durmstrang (GoF-UK p147) when he's sitting safely on the Hogwarts Express, and his mother would never have let him go anyway. He doesn't seem to have any actual appreciation of the Dark (as you imply). 2) Erm. I hesitate to say this, but we don't actually know that much about what the DEs really got up to. Bouncing people around in the air was described by the Dark Lord himself as `torture'...and while it was very traumatic for those concerned, it's not quite having your entrails pulled out, is it? (I'm sure a lot of Muggles would *love* to be levitated 60ft high, under more controlled conditions ;^) That incident read to me as being more analogous to a rather sick school- boy prank, especially as the place was crawling with Ministry wizards meaning it was unlikely to end really nastily. Yes, we hear a lot about murder and torture, but that doesn't mean it was a requirement for *all* DE's to partake. Some of them could have been sitting quietly in the background (brewing potions, say ;-) Even if it *was* required of every DE, there's nothing to say that they all had to revel in it. While some may have done (though from a strategic point of view might not Voldemort have regarded such people as a bit of a liability?), it's just as likely that they had a clear goal in mind and were very ruthless about how they got there ? if people had to die or be tortured for information, so be it. That IMO is a rather disturbing manifestation of evil, as it can so easily evolve out of qualities we are taught to admire ? ambition, goal setting, tenacity... Either way, they *all* end up being seen in the worst light ? a victim of the Cruciatus Curse isn't going to care much if the curser is enjoying it or not, and the guy who's been betrayed into letting his best friends die and spending 13 years in a living hell isn't likely to differentiate between cowardice and sadism. But then, history IS always written by the winners... Just to make it completely clear, I am not, repeat, **not** suggesting that differing intent makes a cruel act less bad (well, not when it comes to torture and murder, anyway) ? I wouldn't care to meet a cold psychopath any more than a raving sadist down Fate Alley [ta, Morrighan]. Nor am I suggesting that the Death Eaters were really misunderstood fluffy bunnies ? but some variation in the entry requirements and job description would allow for more permutations on theories of why someone might be tempted to join (or choose to defect). Chthonia From rinceceol at netzero.net Thu Dec 5 20:44:11 2002 From: rinceceol at netzero.net (rinceceol) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:44:11 -0600 Subject: The most fundamental question Message-ID: <001c01c29c9f$11d99340$dde99840@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47801 Pickle Jimmy wrote: <> Now me: Well, here's something that just crossed my mind: JKR makes a big deal about life-debts, i.e. James saving Severus and Harry saving Pettigrew. Well, Harry's saved them all. All the men, women, crazy old people and itty bitty babies, so.....wouldn't the ENTIRE WW owe him a *massive* life debt? I'm also curious to know why LV wanted to off Harry (and James) in the first place. Lily was the only one of them who LV *might* have spared, so this says to me it's something to do with the Potter blood. *shrug* I'm sure it will have to be touched on in later books, so I vote for "wait and see." At this point I really don't think we have enough information to even make an educated guess. Cheers all! ~rinceceol --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/8/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Dec 5 20:53:52 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:53:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some mistakes in book1??? Message-ID: <1ab.d1db50c.2b2116e0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47802 Sherry: > Now me: > It also assumes that he was *bitten*. I don't recall ever hearing any > details > about the mauling. Maybe Fluffy clawed him. > I think the implication is that he was bitten, from his remark about 'how are you supposed to keep your eyes on all three heads at once'. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Audra1976 at aol.com Thu Dec 5 21:22:54 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:22:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual talent or sheer dumb luck Message-ID: <93.272b6fe0.2b211dae@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47803 Alright, I'll play devil's advocate with this one... psychic_serpent at yahoo.com writes: << Was it luck for him to refuse to give the stone to Quirrell? >> Me: No, but it was luck for him to survive the confrontation--the same luck that saved his life when he was 1. Quirrelmort probably would have killed him and taken the Stone if it wasn't for Lily's sacrifice. psychic_serpent at yahoo.com: <> Me: No, but once again it was luck that he survived. It was lucky that Fawkes came in and pecked the basilisk's eyes out and dropped the sorting hat into Harry's hands as Harry was just standing there muttering, "Help me, help me, someone, anyone." Harry didn't intentionally call Fawkes, or summon Gryffindor's sword. And it was very lucky that Tom Riddle, in making his little speech, "forgot" that phoenix tears have healing properties. psychic_serpent at yahoo.com: <> Me: No, but it was luck that he got to go back in time with the Time Turner and get a second chance at it. Harry *couldn't* conjure the Patronus when it really counted the first time around. The Dementors would have sucked out his and Sirius's soul if it wasn't for the Time Turner. psychic_serpent at yahoo.com: <> Me: Well there was a lot of luck going on in this scene. It was luck that the wands had the reaction they did, and Harry's parents told him what to do. It was also extremely lucky that none of the DE's spells hit Harry as he was running away. What are they, Storm Troopers? psychic_serpent at yahoo.com: <> Okay, Harry had a *lot* of help with those tasks. Hagrid told him what the first task was and Sirius and Moody (I think) helped him on the right path to figuring out what to do. Harry sucked at the second task. He didn't figure out for himself how to open the egg for the clue *or* how to accomplish the task. In the third task, Cedric did just as well as Harry, and Victor might have as well if he weren't under a curse. Audra From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 21:33:31 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:33:31 -0000 Subject: The most fundamental question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47804 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., PAGAN MICHELLE I wrote: > ...edited... > > Why the heck is Harry Potter so darn important? > > ...edited... > > Let me know your thoughts, > Polaris bboy_mn commeents: I don't think they are protecting Harry because of who he is or what he has done, but because of who he will become and what he will do. Harry clearly had a destiny to fulfill. A destiny that is known by many powerful and infulential people in the wizarding world and the wizarding government, but at the same time is not necessarily general knowledge. Prof.Trelawney foresaw Harry's destiny, Dumbledore knows, the Centaurs have read the stars and they know, I believe Mr. Weasley knows, Fudge knows, as do many other people. The psychics have predicted it, the oracles have prophesied it, the soothsayers foretold it, all the signs have pointed to Harry having a very important destiny. A vital and critical destiny to the wizard world. While one may have a absolute destiny, that doesn't not guarantee that one will fulfill their destiny. I think what Dumbledore is doing is giving Harry the knowledge, wisdon, and experience he will need to realise that destiny, but only Harry through his skill, his magic, his character and his choices can control whether that destiny will truly be fulfilled. I also think it is very wise of them to let Harry discover this destiny on his own. People have wondered before why Harry never askes more questions. I think it is because deep down inside he realizes that there is more to his life than he is being told. That there is MUCH more to his life than he is being told, and while he would desperately like to hear what those things are, he is, at the same time, afraid to know what they are. He is afraid of having to live with that knowledge. That's just my intuitive sense of what is happening. bboy_mn From MKELLER at SUNLINK.NET Thu Dec 5 20:53:29 2002 From: MKELLER at SUNLINK.NET (jksunflower2002) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:53:29 -0000 Subject: Harry Beats Voldemort: Actual talent or sheer dumb luck/ Sirius's remorse In-Reply-To: <14674829.1039113997144.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47805 greg_a126 writes: >> Now, on the topic of Sirius and remorse, or lack thereof:>> Richelle replied:- > I think the entire prank revolves around something we don't understand because we don't know all of the circumstances. I think it stems from a history between he and Snape that preceded Hogwarts. Casting Snape as the Draco of the Maurader's years doesn't figure in. I really doubt Harry, Ron or Hermione would set up a prank to kill Draco. There's more to it than what went on at Hogwarts, in my opinion. > Richelle My thoughts: Perhaps, at the tender age of 16, Snape was alredy a DE and spying for Voldemort. Sirius found this out, and decided to pull the "prank." Just a theory. First posting (anywhere, ever.) Going back to lurking. Toad From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Dec 5 22:48:24 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 22:48:24 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47806 Quidditch puzzles me. IIRC, JKR said that she had invented Quidditch because all societies have sport as a focal point. But, as much as I like reading about Harry's Quidditch obsession and indeed the humour shown in QTTA, I have trouble believing that Quidditch would actually work. This is not because my feet are firmly on the ground, but the nature of some of the rules. Quidditch seems to me to be 2 games in one ? the seekers catching the snitch and the rest of the team playing a more conventional "put ball in goal and score points" game. My understanding of Quidditch is that the Seeker is normally responsible for winning the game; Ireland winning the game although Bulgaria's Krum caught the Snitch struck me as unusual. What then is the point of the rest of the game? Firstly, I would argue entertainment and a chance to see different strategies and talents shown on broomsticks. But the real importance to the fans, and indeed to the cohesiveness of the game, must be in the way in which the league tables are drawn up. The English Football League (soccer) works as follows: a winning team gains 3 points for winning a match and 1 for a draw, but, when 2 or more teams have the same number of points, the team which scored the most goals, and had the fewest goals against them, is the one which is higher up the League. Does Hogwart's Quidditch cup work in a similar fashion? Does the professional Quidditch league work along similar lines? We know that points are significant to the Hogwarts Quidditch cup as Harry has to wait until Gryffindor are a number of points ahead before catching the Golden Snitch in Gryffindor's 3rd match in PoA. Winning the match would not have won Gryffindor the cup. Is it good then for Harry to try and catch the snitch early on? (Except for when he needs a win to stop Snape favouring Hufflepuff). I would think that it is not, unless he is playing for the weaker side. It would be more advantageous to stop the other seeker catching the snitch and let his side win more points. Of course, in professional Quidditch, an early snitch catch would be bad entertainment value. Rather like a boxer being knocked out in the first round. It may sound sensational, but effectively the spectators have been deprived of entertainment. I have many more questions relating to Quidditch that I will be asking, but at this point I really want to know: could Quidditch actually work? Ali From timregan at microsoft.com Thu Dec 5 23:06:10 2002 From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 23:06:10 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47807 Hi All, --- Ali wrote: > I have trouble believing that Quidditch would actually > work. I totally agree, though I've refrained from writing as I haven't yet read the "Quidditch Through the Ages" book. The thing that worries me about it is the lack of a focal point. In the Muggle World all popular ball games have only one ball in play at a time. Now there are some notable exceptions to this rule e.g. golf and snooker or pool. But in golf there's still only one ball to pay attention to at a time and in snooker the table is small enough to take it all in at a glance. I too don't think Quidditch would work. Cheers, Dumbledad From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 5 23:30:14 2002 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?Iris=20FT?=) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 00:30:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where is the matter? (Metathinking and canon theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021205233014.7406.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47808 Well, there were loads of e-mails in my box, and I couldn?t ignore that many of them had to do with what I call ?the metathinking versus theories debate?. Honestly, I don?t see where is the matter. Or rather, should I say that, debating about which is the better way of understanding our favourite books, many of us are missing opportunities of enjoying them completely? We don?t have to forget that writing is an art, and that an artwork can?t be understood completely if we separate it from what makes it exist: the artist, the society the artist lives in, and the artistic sources he or she uses to work. Some examples: Michelangelo?s David is at the same time the heir to antique statuary, a symbol of Florence in the 15th century (the colossus represents the will of the city to claim its independence), and an example of the artist?s thirst of fame. Mozart?s Don Giovanni is reliant on Tirso de Molina and Moli?re, and it?s also a painting of the 18th century?s society and a representation of the musician?s own preoccupations (the Comendatore?s statue is a symbol of all the obstacles he had to face). When Victor Hugo wrote Les Mis?rables, he relied on the antique tragedy to create Jean Valjean, but he also put in his book a realistic description of France in the 19th century and many of his political ideas. Closer to us, Picasso?s Guernica is a perfect example of the old pictorial tradition of the triptych; at the same time it?s an account of the Spanish Civil War and an expression of the painter?s own suffering. I will finish that list with Coppola?s Dracula: the prologue is a tribute to Eisenstein?s Ivan the Terrible, the main topic relies on the 1990?s society (many critics said that it was a metaphor of AIDS), and the whole movie is a reflection of the director?s questioning about power and darkness. Sorry, it was long, but I wanted to give artistic examples as different as possible. It?s clear that you can take one or another and analyse it from a single point of view. You can look at David or Guernica and say that they are incredibly powerful, that they impress you and make you feel very small or very sad, and you will be right. You can listen to Don Giovanni singing to Zerlina ?L? ci darem la mano? and say that he reminds you some very tricky boyfriend, and you will be right. You can analyse Dracula for itself, notice that the vampire and Van Helsing share many characteristics, and you will be right. On the other hand, you can analyse David and Guernica from an historical point of view, and you will be right too. You will say that don Giovanni?s aria is so representative of Mozart?s art and that will be exact. You can consider that Dracula and Don Corleone are two faces of a same character in Coppola?s artwork; that will be true. The only matter is that if you take only one point of view, you will miss something. Guernica can make you thrill, but it is nothing if you forget what it represents. Mozart?s maestria is wonderful, but the most important is that his opera touches your human heart. That?s what I would like to help you understand, coming back to Harry Potter. We are so lucky; we have an artwork that we can enjoy and analyse at the same time; a wonderful book that is a literary tribute to prestigious traditions, a sharp painting of our society and a mirror of our own emotions. Why should we deprive ourselves of one of those opportunities? Personally, I have no problem in seeing Harry as a new Oedipus and in finding that he looks like the teenagers I work with. I don?t see any contradiction in saying that Snape reminds me one of my teachers and that he is also a romantic (literary speaking) character. I don?t see any objection to the fact that Harry behaves according to epic style in GoF and that the description of his resentment towards Ron makes me remind how I felt myself two years ago when I had an argument with a friend. I take all the points of view; I need them all. How could I deny that MD is a fine canon theory, and that it?s true that we can see the story as an echo of the war against terrorism? Furthermore, the vision of Dumbledore as the leader of a big spying game that implies he has to manipulate Harry (forgive me if this summate is close to caricature, but here it?s late and I have to finish) is so interesting It reminds the gods manipulating the heroes in the Greek tragedies. Who said that canon theories and metathinking were incompatible? Iris December , 6th. One year ago, at 11a.m., I opened for the first time a Harry Potter book Champagne! --------------------------------- Soyez solidaire soutenez l?action du T?l?thon avec Yahoo! France. Cliquez ici pour faire un don ! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 23:44:21 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 23:44:21 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47809 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tim Regan" wrote: > Hi All, > > --- Ali wrote: > > I have trouble believing that Quidditch would actually > > work. > > I totally agree, though I've refrained from writing as I haven't yet > read the "Quidditch Through the Ages" book. The thing that worries > me about it is the lack of a focal point. > > ...edited... > > I too don't think Quidditch would work. > > Cheers, > Dumbledad bboy_mn comments: I'm no big sports fan, so I am certainly no expert, but I don't see what the problem is. There is a focused game going on. It is the Chasers trying to score goals, and the opposing team trying to stop them; that is the on-going dynamic. This is further complicated and made MUCH more dangerous by the presents of bludgers. Which act indenpendantly to unseat (mangle, mame, kill) as many players as possible. Now an already dymanic game, by normals standards, has become very dynamic and dangerous. But the presents of bludgers further increases the dymanics of the game by allowing the Beaters to use the bludgers against the other team. The Beaters have the option of using the bludgers in a variety of stategies to affect the play of the game. The Seeker is placed on top of this dynamic and given the nearly impossible task of spotting and catching a small, high-speed, highly manuverable flying object in the mist of a frenzy of flying players and dangerous bludgers. It has already been pointed out that the Seeker has the option of 'seeking' or preventing the other Seeker from getting the Snitch. Again, adding to the dynamics and providing a variety of strategies that can be played. It's already been pointed out that it's possible to catch the Snitch and lose the game, so the game isn't determined solely by the Snitch. You have the core game of Chasers. The equivalent of any boring (in my eyes) muggle sporting event. Layered on top of that are the dangers of the bludgers, combined with the options of the Beaters playing a defensive or offensive game. Layered on top of that is the Seeker, who can play a variety of strategies including interferring with the Beaters and Chasers (which Harry has done) as well as interferring with the other Seeker (which Draco & Cho have done). Then this is all compounded by the players skill at flying. To me, it is the dangers of stock car racing, sky diving, bungie jumping, motocross, and high speed aerial combat, combined with the skill and stategy of any typical muggle team ball/puck type sport. Seems like one very exiting and very workable game to me. Playable stratedies on many levels. Ignoring, of course, our lack of actual flying brooms. I see it as a very exciting and workable game. bboy_mn From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 6 00:34:51 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 00:34:51 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some mistakes in book1??? References: <20021205141541.49377.qmail@web40508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005101c29cbf$4b5f0440$4c8401d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 47810 Maria wrote: > 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. If she was flying in the same direction as the bludger (and she probably was for it to hit her from the back), the relative speed was not that high, so it's not the same as the Bludger hitting Harry who didn't move at the time. Irene From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Dec 6 01:28:06 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:28:06 -0600 Subject: Harry's gift giving (was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umm... do they bathe?) References: <173.1259fc8a.2b1fd099@cs.com> Message-ID: <01c301c29cc6$bb464f00$8da1cdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 47812 Sheryl said: > >There is only so much detail a person can fit into a book. Just like >presents... We only see what Harry gets for his birthday. We don't see what >he gives Ron and Hermione for theirs. We assume he does get them birthday >presents, but it is not mentioned. In fact, I believe there is only one >instance where we actually see someone get a present from Harry and that is >GoF with Ron's Chudley Cannon's hat. Illyana wrote: > At the QWC Harry buys both Ron and Hermione those omnioculars (i > think that's the correct spelling). He says that they're worth the > next 10 Christmas presents - so I guess those could count! Although > Ron does pay him back with that "gold." Which disappeared shortly after, and Ron mentioned that when he got his Christmas present from Harry (the hat). I read in a chat/interview with JKR after PoA where someone asked her about Harry giving gifts, since we never saw it. She said something like Ron wasn't comfortable getting things from him, etc. But then in the very next book we have Harry giving Ron a present (not only at the QWC, along with one for Hermione, but also for Christmas). My personal thoughts on the matter were that until GoF Harry didn't have anywhere to buy a gift. Short of buying candy on the train (or perhaps Hogwarts has a candy shop? Harry did get a lot of candy when he was in the hospital in SS/PS), he didn't have anywhere to shop. In PoA he had to sneak around at Hogsmeade, and it wasn't until Sirius gave him a permission note that he was "legal" to visit Hogsmeade. So perhaps he simply didn't have anywhere to buy things? Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mlacats at aol.com Fri Dec 6 01:28:55 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 20:28:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? Message-ID: <14b.18692400.2b215757@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47813 --- Ali wrote: > > I have trouble believing that Quidditch would actually > > work. > > I totally agree, though I've refrained from writing as I haven't yet > read the "Quidditch Through the Ages" book. The thing that worries > me about it is the lack of a focal point. > > I too don't think Quidditch would work. > Cheers, > Dumbledad bboy_mn comments: I'm no big sports fan, so I am certainly no expert, but I don't see what the problem is. There is a focused game going on. It is the Chasers trying to score goals, and the opposing team trying to stop them; that is the on-going dynamic. To me, it is the dangers of stock car racing, sky diving, bungie jumping, motocross, and high speed aerial combat, combined with the skill and stategy of any typical muggle team ball/puck type sport. Seems like one very exiting and very workable game to me. Playable stratedies on many levels. Ignoring, of course, our lack of actual flying brooms. I see it as a very exciting and workable game. bboy_mn Hello All, My husband and I were discussing this very issue the other day. He was saying that he saw no point to the chasers since it's the Seeker that wins the game. I told him that the Seeker can get the snitch but not necessarily win the game but there are other factors to consider: for instance, in one game Harry had to hold back, while Gryffindor scored I think 50 points or so (which book was that in?), as Oliver Wood put it, "we would win the match but lose the House Cup." We must factor in the House Cup when we measure the points of a Quidditch match. I also told him that the Golden Snitch is very difficult to spot -- the game can go on for months with no one getting the snitch! And, like you said, there are all the dynamics of the game going on. To me, it's very exciting! Harriet (I hope I'm making sense -- I sitting here with an enormous head cold!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 02:36:40 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 02:36:40 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some mistakes in book1??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47814 Maria Wrote: >1. How could Fluffy bite Snape's leg? Fluffy is supposed to be a dog >that "took up the entire space between the floor and the ceiling." >Wouldn't it be rather hard for it to bite Snape's *leg*? If I were >that dog, I'd probably just bite his head off. Can I tell you what bugs me about this whole scenario? When Snape got wounded, why didn't he go to the infirmary and get himself fixed up? Instead, he limps around days after the attack. Why does he have Filch change the bandages instead of Madame Pomfrey? Seems really strange. -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 02:48:32 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Megalynn S.) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:48:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47815 The thing that gets me most about Quidditch is the 150 pts. Why can't the game just be over when the snitch is caught? Or why not 50 points? I mean having more than an 150 point difference is SO unlickly it makes the rest of the game almost pointless. Or even, have like a 2 hour time limit on the game and if you get the snitch you get the extra opints but if not, the games just over. I don't know, it's just unreasonable to me. Megalynn44 _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From Malady579 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 03:21:44 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 03:21:44 -0000 Subject: Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.) In-Reply-To: <18a.1250fdbe.2b20e9cc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47816 Ohhh, my head hurts. Why? Why, oh why, did I take on the uncertainty of meta-thinking? How is it that all the educated, well-read minds of HPfGU always manage to get tripped up on this word. Probably because it doesn't exist. And that is where the problem lies. If I look in my Webster's unabridged, I find metaphysics, metastable, even metastasis (which I cannot even pronounce) but not metathinking. How incredibly frustrating...for both sides here. That is why CK I *cannot* give you the citation for my definition of metathinking as you requested. It has none. Only thing I can offer really is a breakdown of the word which really does not reveal much. So then, why do we use the word 'meta-thinking'? We can't be the first fandom to realize that discussions can be fractured into so many facets. Gracious, I would hate to be a part of the Star Wars fandom when they have books *and* movies in their main canon. I even heard there was a discussion whether Jar-Jar Bink's coloring book could be considered canon. Found that amusing. So really, who says which is *the* canon? I wonder if they have the problems we do? Anyway, I digress a bit...like normal, we are trying to hammer down this meta-thinking definition. And why is this *so* important? Probably because, we the MD three, use it so much as a red flag. And we don't want to be seen as having a mutable red flag. ;) This is also important because I disagree with CK when she said: >Now, if the MD supporters are going to say, "well, that's not >metathinking," that's fine. Clearly we have different ideas on what >precisely constitutes metathinking, and I'm fine with simply agreeing >to disagree. I don't think we can agree to disagree on what this definition should be. It is too important. I mean we *all* use it in sentences, so it greatly helps if we all know the translation of such a foreign word. And I thought Pip put it nicely - it is an outside view on a world A view that removes itself from the rules of *that* world. Her exact quote from post#47047 >'Metathinking' - it's a question of levels. DISHWASHER is based on >a 'within the book' viewpoint, where the books and characters are >treated as if they are real events, real characters, and real >motivations. In that context, going up a level so you're looking at >the books from the OUTSIDE is regarded as 'not fair play' simply >because the theory doesn't have that viewpoint. So the reason why it is not considered fair to use meta-thinking against MD is that MD never factors in its equation that the story is in fact a story written by an author. MD is purely grounded in the book text. On the actions and limits of the world given. To go outside the world is an attempt to trump all those rules of a world by going straight to the maker. And this trumps the canon, because JKR is God. She alone decides what can and cannot happen. We (MD Defense) cannot deny that, but we can call "Foul!" ourselves, because we were playing by different rules. I ask you. Do you think we *can't* take MD into the meta-thinking world? Pip, Grey, and I are perfectly capable of reading with meta-thinking glasses (well Grey *says* he can't) but we chose not to in this instance because we want to discuss the books from within the books. It is a much harder feat to limit yourself. So let's just tackle the questions placed on the table and I think I'll start with Iris: Iris wrote: >We don?t have to forget that writing is an art, and that an artwork >can?t be understood completely if we separate it from what makes it >exist: the artist, the society the artist lives in, and the artistic >sources he or she uses to work. :) Iris. Like all works by man, there are many valid, wonderful points of views to it. Let's use sculpture since it works well here. One can look at all views, or one can focus on just one. When someone focuses on just one view, then it seems only fair that their critics also hunch down and look from their point of view too. Then true critic of just *that* point of view can occur. This does not deny that other viewpoints exist, but only that this one is the focus of the moment. Now when MD says it is based solely on canon, then it is hunching itself over and looking only from that point of view. It also asks that of its critics. That way, if something is wrong in that point of view, then the critics are at the right advantage point to find the critic. -------- CK's problem with Pip saying: >[Pip] One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is >the Voldemort-Potter war?' The answer is that it's an undercover >sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war. Ck said that: >[CK] thus, MD is indeed founded on the idea that the Voldemort war is >an undercover war. If she had used ONLY examples from the books to >support that statement, I would agree with you that... >[Melody] Pip's evidence does not say that the war was a mirror or a >parallel to the IRA, but rather, a case where this type of war is >happening. CK also said (since my point on the subject covers this as well): >Oh. Well, she does that too [parallel's IRA war with D/V war] - "What >sort of tactics do you use in such a war?" (ie, a war such as the RL >one referenced earlier) and then cites events in the books that >support parallels. When Pip tried to show the list that the D/V war is similar to terrorist wars, she *was* stepping outside the text. I cannot deny that. She did so to show the list what this type of war is and why the terrorist war Pip sketches out is similar to that type of war. Why did she do this? To place all the listees on the same page. Without it, she would be talking to a select few that actually know what a terrorist war is. Now this is not meta-thinking because that fact is there. It *is* a terrorist war just like Harry *is* a boy. It is not an intent by the author to be a terrorist war no more than it is the intent of the author that Harry be male. I think the blasted English language [the stupid, annoying, words-can-mean-so-many-things language] got in the way of my point before. Before I said: > If Pip was say, I believe that D/V is fighting a terrorist war > because their actions parallel the actions of the IRA and English > gov't, then that would be meta-thinking. Her evidence would be split > between RL and the book. She would be saying JKR is purposely > attempting to create an allegory of the events. To me, the meta-thinking of the above is if JKR purposely has distinct parallels to the said IRA terrorist war. If JKR has Dumbledore as a caricature of such-and-such leader and Voldemort as the other such-and-so leader, and then proceeded to walk them through the actions of both leaders [I will confess I know **very** little about the IRA war], that is meta-thinking in that JKR wrote outside the world and rules of Harry Potter and brought allegory to the text. It is *meant* to be that way. But by saying JKR wrote about her own knowledge of the world around her, you are not saying she is trying to write outside the realm of Harry Potter land. She is only using facts and figures to make her world. Gracious, am I loosing you? This is so hard to explain, and I *so* want to explain this correctly. The reason Pip's terrorist explanation is not meta-thinking is because the reference to IRA is not in the text. Pip only used it because most of the listees would see her point of view. So, since I doubt I made any sense back there, let me just move on... ---- Melody said: > Meta-thinking is *not* comparing the book to life adventures but > making assertions about the book because it is a book. That is RL in > this definition. Eliose said: >I think you here highlight a problem that some of us have with MD. >Every time someone articulates a problem, the MD Defense Team (you >don't know how hard it is to spell American!) pulls out a new and >unexpected definition. Now you have your own definition of RL. Eloise, from my point of view, every time someone attacks MD they create a new view of meta-thinking that needs to be defined and qualified. Oh, and spell MD defense team as you will. Far be it for me to say how you should and should not spell. :) Eloise wrote: >What you basically seem to be saying is that meta-thinking = using >any of the tools of literary criticism, but then giving only the >crudest examples of their use, as Grey Wolf did also. As Grey Wolf >was courteous enough to acknowledge, though, those who indulge in >meta-thinking tend to be a little better at it than that. OK, that hurt Eloise. I am sorry if my examples were "the crudest examples" of literary criticism, and I am sorry if I somehow insulted those who are obviously better at it than I alluded. Yes I did over simplify. Something I *love* to do in Math, but this is English Lit. I apologies if anyone was hurt in the process of my examples. I meant no harm. I only wanted to find an example for each point, not point a finger at each person. I have no problem with meta-thinking, and support the right for everyone to use it: walk around the sculpture, and appraise it's artist's vision, craftsmanship, detail... Three cheers in fact, but it does not always apply as a *good* offense to every theory. ----- So really, all this discussion revolving around whether MD should allow meta-thinking to be accepted as fair criticism. A criticism that could disprove MD. I mean y'all can place argument after argument on the table and believe yourself that it disproves MD, but why must *we the MD three* accept that? From our "hunched over point of view," your critic does not apply. It is not taking into account what we see. Now you can attack the reason why we are "hunched over" and you can say we are silly for limiting ourselves, but that does not create a good critic of the theory itself. All we ask is for you to come on over (I promise we don't bit...well Grey might, and Pip and I might if provoked ), get hunched yourself, and peer at the HP sculpture from our point-of-view. If you still don't see it our way, then that is fine. Just expect us to defend our view with gusto. ;) Now, did I answer all the questions or did I only cause more to be posed? Given that MD never does the previous, then I will stop for now. One needs to pace herself and eat dinner to have the strength for the later. :) Melody From alina at distantplace.net Fri Dec 6 03:27:11 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:27:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? References: Message-ID: <002d01c29cd7$63c87b20$12206418@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 47817 > The thing that gets me most about Quidditch is the 150 pts. Why can't the > game just be over when the snitch is caught? Or why not 50 points? I mean > having more than an 150 point difference is SO unlickly it makes the rest of > the game almost pointless. Or even, have like a 2 hour time limit on the > game and if you get the snitch you get the extra opints but if not, the > games just over. I don't know, it's just unreasonable to me. > > Megalynn44 > I guess you haven't read "Quidditch Through The Ages". In 1269 Chief of Wizards' Council Barberus Bragge brought a bird, a Golden Snidget, to a Quidditch match. He let it out and said he'll pay 150 galleons to the one who catches it. It started a tradition that replaced GSnidgets with GSnitches after the bird almost became extinct. The 150 galleons became 150 points. Alina. From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 03:34:58 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 03:34:58 -0000 Subject: Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47818 *grin* This is why I find it EVER so much easier to think of MD as a 'puzzle' rather than a 'theory.' The puzzle asks: Can we figure out the reasons and repercussions for characters' actions in the books, going SOLELY on the information in the books? And please, don't try to explain why MD is a theory. I'm sure you have your reasons - this is just a way that it makes sense in my twisted mind. ;) And it's "not fair" to use metathinking arguements to "disprove" MD because if we were allowed to do that, I could pull out a calculator, figure out the odds involved on getting every single one of the many conclusions correct and say, "you know, statistically, there's no way you got ALL of that right." But that's a cheap way out. ;) CK clicketykeys From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 03:52:16 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:52:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Battle Chess (was: Re: the Mirror of Erised/potion test) References: Message-ID: <004901c29cda$de997e00$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47819 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Sherry Garfio wrote: > > > Sherry does anybody > know if > > there's a computer chess game available that's based on HP, as in > with animated > > pieces that clobber each other? If not, somebody really should > market one) > Melpomene: > Years ago my son (now 12) played something called Battle Chess on the > PC. It was "totally barbaric!" (cringes with embarassment as I > remember yelling at husband for buying such a game for a child!)and I > remember it springing to mind when I read about Wizard Chess. I have > no idea if such a game still exists but I'd be surprised if it > didn't. Of course this was before HP and so it wasn't > technically "Wizard Chess". I think it had different characters you > could choose from. Good Luck. We have the HP chess set as well. > > who really hopes this post actually makes it to the board! > me: Battle Chess still exists and it's available for free. http://www.chesscentral.com/chess_download/battle_chess.htm Rob From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 6 04:03:49 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 04:03:49 -0000 Subject: Meta-Thinking and Magic Dishwasher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47820 Blast you, all of you! I was sitting down to write a post on Barty Crouch Sr. but, of course, this topic would have to come up, and I would have to respond to it. (And Elkins, WHERE ARE YOU? Yes, I know. You're writing the LupiFAQ. Keep up the good work, but don't forget you promised me a massive Crouch post.) Pip -post#47047 >'Metathinking' - it's a question of levels. DISHWASHER is based on >a 'within the book' viewpoint, where the books and characters are >treated as if they are real events, real characters, and real >motivations. I think this is a reasonable definition of terms, and that a lot of other definitions being thrown about recently muddy the waters. As the MD Defense Team have noted, using IRA examples is not metathinking. Metathinking would be using an argument about the book's theme. >In that context, going up a level so you're looking at >the books from the OUTSIDE is regarded as 'not fair play' simply >because the theory doesn't have that viewpoint. Now this is where I've never been able to follow the MD-ers. It never occured to me that criticism of a theory is limited to the theory's viewpoints. Now, I do understand some of what Pip has been saying. For example, metathinking will not explain the actions of the characters inside the story. As Pip explained, thematic reasons for continuing CoS past Chapter 12 will not explain why the characters in the book did what they did. It won't give us Dumbledore's motivations. In this respect, MAGIC DISHWASHER dicussion would focus on whether the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory fits within the canon, provides appropriate explanations for characters' actions etc. However, there's metathinking. A metathinking discussion of MAGIC DISHWASHER asks whether the theory fits within the thematic, moral etc. framework of the Potter series. The MD Defense Team seems to think that a metathinking-based critique is unfair. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why. The fact that Pip, Grey Wolf, and Melody do not engage in metathinking when sorting out Dumbledore's motivations, actions etc. within canon, does not mean that the theory is immune to critique from a metathinking standpoint, nor may I add does it make the theory inherently immune from defense from a metathinking standpoint. It makes sense to reject a theory on grounds of metathinking. In fact, I suspect that's why we, in the end, reject and accept the theories we do. Of course, metathinking is a hazy game. No one on the list engages in as much metathinking as Captain Cindy. The Big Bang theory is metathinking taken to the extremes. And you know how often she's accused of humpty-dumptying the Bangs. Metathinking is a lot less precise that speculation within canon. However, that doesn't make it less valuable as a tool of critique. In the end, as I said, metathinking makes it or breaks it for me. LYCANTHROPE I've always found fascinating, and they have heaps of canon evidence, but it's metathinking that means you won't see me in that organization any day soon. (We won't go into why exactly here.) DEVIL is cool, but it disrupts the reading of Crouch and Bagman as literary doubles. The same goes for MAGIC DISHWASHER. It contradicts my conception of the framework of canon. (We won't go into why exactly here, either.) So, while good discussion can be had within canon, (And PRESSURE COOKER tried to do this, I think,) metathinking must be recognized as crucial to any discussion of any theory, whether you care to indulge in it or not. Eileen From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 04:27:53 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:27:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Battle Chess (was: Re: the Mirror of Erised/potion test) References: <004901c29cda$de997e00$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> Message-ID: <005301c29cdf$d8cc4160$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47821 Err...replying to my own post, sorry. Those are Demo's only. Didn't realize till I'd downloaded them myself. Sorry Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Gonzalez" > > me: > Battle Chess still exists and it's available for free. > http://www.chesscentral.com/chess_download/battle_chess.htm > From Paul_one2 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 04:18:07 2002 From: Paul_one2 at hotmail.com (melodiousmonkey) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 04:18:07 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47822 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Megalynn S." wrote: > The thing that gets me most about Quidditch is the 150 pts. Why can't the > game just be over when the snitch is caught? Or why not 50 points? I mean > having more than an 150 point difference is SO unlickly it makes the rest of > the game almost pointless. Or even, have like a 2 hour time limit on the > game and if you get the snitch you get the extra opints but if not, the > games just over. I don't know, it's just unreasonable to me. > > Megalynn44 > I agree with this - it seems much more sensible to play for 2 hours or so, and make catching the snitch worth 50 or 60 points, then re-releasing it, making it possible for seekers to catch it several times in a match, or not at all. The way it stands, catching the snitch almost always wins the game, and on the odd occaision when one team is so much better than another that a 150 point gap opens up, the seeker on the losing team can't catch the snitch (I still can't fathom why Krum lost his team the chance of winning the world cup...) The reason why the seeker is so important (apart from the one given in QTHA) is probably to allow Harry to be a hero every match. It is equivallent to someone scoring a golden goal in soccer. That's my thoughts, anyway Paul From phoenix_gray at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 04:31:43 2002 From: phoenix_gray at hotmail.com (phoenix gray) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:31:43 -1000 Subject: can quidditchc really work? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47823 Ali wrote: asking, but at this point I really want to know: could Quidditch actually work? Actually, I have a lot of questions about quidditch. I can't see, so the movie was no help to me if it explained this, and I don't remember the books saying so, but here goes. I assume the chasers use both hands to catch and make scores. And the beaters use both hands to hit the bludgers. And I assume they are moving while doing this. How are they controling the brooms during this? Or how do they keep from falling off? If someone can give me and idea, it would be greatly appreciated Thanks. Phoenix _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From nosref at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 05:34:03 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:34:03 -0000 Subject: The most fundamental question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47824 PAGAN MICHELLE wrote: > Why the heck is Harry Potter so darn important? > So, as I * know* has been speculated, Voldemort went after Harry > especially. > But why? Does anyone have any theory for that? Me: Well, I have been waiting for the answer to that question since book one. That is one of the reasons why I had followed the book series. We could theorize all we want but I think we won't *really know* the reason until book 7. And it better be a darn good reason. : ) Fer From alina at distantplace.net Fri Dec 6 05:43:52 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 00:43:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The most fundamental question References: Message-ID: <007e01c29cea$7614f340$12206418@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 47825 > PAGAN MICHELLE wrote: > > > Why the heck is Harry Potter so darn important? > > > So, as I * know* has been speculated, Voldemort went after Harry > > especially. > > > But why? Does anyone have any theory for that? > In my opinion, the "Heir Of Gryffindor" theory answers that question best. It certainly does seem to make some sense for the Heir of Slytherin to go after the HoG, doesn't it? Alina. From nosref at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 05:47:48 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:47:48 -0000 Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47826 maria asked: > 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a > Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) > on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since > Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. bboy_mn responds: > If it hit her on the BACK of the head then, in a dynamic game like > Quidditch, it is likely that she was moving forward when it happened. > That forward movement would have softened the blow. ME: Agreed. Since she was moving the same direction as the bludger, the impact was not as hard. bboy_mn again: > Also, wizards and witches seem very resilient. Neville fell from 50ft > and only broke his wrist. Harry fell from a similar height (onto soft > wet ground) and was unhurt. He was unconcious because of the Dementor, > not because of the fall. That's the equivalent of falling off a FIVE > story building. ME: Again, I agree with you. But IIRC the reason why Harry was unhurt when he fell off his broom (PoA - Dementors in the Quidditch scene) was that Dumbledore cast a spell on him to make him fall slowly. I don't have my book with me but that's what I remember. Fer From nosref at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 05:48:29 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:48:29 -0000 Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47827 maria asked: > 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a > Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) > on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since > Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. bboy_mn responds: > If it hit her on the BACK of the head then, in a dynamic game like > Quidditch, it is likely that she was moving forward when it happened. > That forward movement would have softened the blow. ME: Agreed. Since she was moving the same direction as the bludger, the impact was not as hard. bboy_mn again: > Also, wizards and witches seem very resilient. Neville fell from 50ft > and only broke his wrist. Harry fell from a similar height (onto soft > wet ground) and was unhurt. He was unconcious because of the Dementor, > not because of the fall. That's the equivalent of falling off a FIVE > story building. ME: Again, I agree with you. But IIRC the reason why Harry was unhurt when he fell off his broom (PoA - Dementors in the Quidditch scene) was that Dumbledore cast a spell on him to make him fall slowly. I don't have my book with me but that's what I remember. Fer From the.gremlin at verizon.net Fri Dec 6 06:08:24 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 06:08:24 -0000 Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47828 Gail B. wrote: "Can I tell you what bugs me about this whole scenario? When Snape got wounded, why didn't he go to the infirmary and get himself fixed up? Instead, he limps around days after the attack. Why does he have Filch change the bandages instead of Madame Pomfrey? Seems really strange." What would he have told her? "Oh, one of my slimy things in a jar bit me." Course, the limping was a little obvious. You would have thought another teacher would notice. And Filch and Snape seem to have some sort of special rapport going on...oh, no. Well, it's been done. Long story short, he didn't have Madam Pomfrey fix him up because he didn't want her to know. Though someone speculated awhile ago (a long long while ago) that he didn't like to be seen as weak, so there's another reason. With Filch, it's okay...for some odd reason. Well, Filch wouldn't try to put pajamas on Snape and tuck him into bed. Madam Pomfrey would fret and tut and what-not, and generally make Snape feel like a child, which I'm sure he doesn't want to feel like (even though he ACTS like one sometime...love him, but he needs to GROW UP). -Acire, who isn't sure wether she should call her college instructors 'professor' or 'teacher'. 'Professor' is like HP, and 'teacher' is like high school. From the.gremlin at verizon.net Fri Dec 6 06:41:28 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 06:41:28 -0000 Subject: House-Elves and the Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47829 Okay, the canon for who has a house elf is as follows: "Well whoever owns him [Dobby] will be an old wizarding family, and they'll be rich," said Fred. "Yeah, Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing," said George. "but all we've got is a lousy ghoul in the attic and gnomes all over the garden. House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house..." (CoS, pg. 29, paperback, US Edition). Granted, house-elves are probably passes on in families, as Winky later tells HHR that her mother and her grandmother were serving the Crouches. However, house-elves don't need to be paid (unless you're talking to Hermione). And, now, there's a certain house-elf who has lost her job...Yes, Winky. The Weasleys are a great family, and I'm sure Mrs. Weasley would make sure Winky wouldn't be overworked or antyhing. Plus, compared to her last job, Gred and Forge should be a piece of cake. So why couldn't the Weasleys pick up an elf that had been dismissed? Also, how many house-elves would a family have? Winky was the only elf to serve the Crouches; When Harry indirectly frees Dobby, Lucius says "You've lost me my servant". Not '*one* of my servants', but '*servant*'. Would other families have reason to have more house- elves? Lastly, how do...um...we get baby house-elves? Would it be anything like slave trade, where plantation owners picked the slaves with the best qualities and "mated" them? Because while Winky mentions her mother and grandmother, she doesn't mention any males. Perhaps she doesn't know her biological father? Perhaps her mother didn't even know him that well? If that's true, I'm going to start thinking of joining S.P.E.W. -Acire, who has noticed the JKR likes using semi-colons; some of her sentance have more than one. From lucia at weirdness.org Fri Dec 6 07:45:29 2002 From: lucia at weirdness.org (Lucia August) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 23:45:29 -0800 Subject: Moody/Crouch - whose personality is it? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021205234527.00b3fbe0@mail.weirdness.org> No: HPFGUIDX 47830 Greetings, I'm new to this list but not at all new to the books. I've read them all between 4-5 times and am currently re-reading GOF for the 4th (I think!) time. Hopefully the group didn't just discuss this topic. But all I can think about while reading is Fake!Moody's personality. Whose personality is it? Is it really Crouch's or is it Real!Moody's? Fake!Moody is so gruff and hardened yet kind to Neville after the class experiences the unforgivable curses. Of course, we find out much later that F!M is setting Neville up to help HP in the TWTournament. Yet, in my American version of GOF, Ch. 14, page 220, Neville is feeling proud that Professor Sprout told Professor Moody that he, Neville, is good in Herbology. Harry thinks that it was a very tactful way for Professor Moody to cheer up Neville after his fright of seeing the Cruciatus Curse upon the spider. Doesn't sound to me as if Crouch really could care less about anyone's feelings but his own. At this point in GOF, Ch. 14, page 220, what we know of the Polyjuice Potion is that it wears off after one hour and that one's appearance changes but not one's personality or feelings. At least that's the information I've gleaned from COS. HP and RW were able to take on Goyle and Crabbe's appearances but not their personality. I'm just wondering if because Crouch has to take so much Polyjuice Potion that somehow Real!Moody's personality doesn't bleed through into Fake!Moody's experience. Crouch sure seems convincing as the Real!Moody. Any thoughts? Thanks, GalacticLu [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dangermousehq at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 06:46:13 2002 From: dangermousehq at hotmail.com (dangermousehq at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:46:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] can quidditchc really work? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47831 Phoenix wrote: I have a lot of questions about quidditch. I can't see, so the movie was no help to me if it explained this, and I don't remember the books saying so, but here goes. I assume the chasers use both hands to catch and make scores. And the beaters use both hands to hit the bludgers. And I assume they are moving while doing this. How are they controling the brooms during this? Or how do they keep from falling off? If someone can give me and idea, it would be greatly appreciated Thanks. Phoenix Me: According to Quidditch Through the Ages, the quaffle is charmed not only to float to the ground but also to be adhesive--you can hold the quaffle one-handed. Furthermore, you can hold in against your chest (you know, when you take a football for example and pivot it against your arm?). The beaters also probably use one hand, but could use two... I think that there's quite a bit of game time where both hands are off the broom, and to solve your question, we'd need to know how the brooms themselves operate. Clearly, they're charmed to fly in different directions at different speeds and do certain things, like spin midair or not splinter, or be cushioned for comfort. The piloting aspect is tricky. I'd like to think that you might squeeze the stick of the broom, and that kind of triggers acceleration, but I think it's more likely that the broom is somehow linked to your brain. Evidenced in the flying class in Book One, whem some students can't even get their broom to jump into the air, showing that to some extent, using a broom is controlled by the brain. You'd probably be able to steer, accelerate, decelerate, etc as long as you're on the broom. But staying on is a different manner. Without your hands, you could fall off pretty easily, right? Wood is dismounted by a bludger in Book One, Quirrell jinxes the broom-nearly shaking Harry off, and later falls off in Book Three. I like the idea of having an adhesion charm, but these events make it seem unlikely to exist. I guess you have to have pretty strong legs! -DM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k3nny at paradise.net.nz Fri Dec 6 12:57:22 2002 From: k3nny at paradise.net.nz (mythxhp) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:57:22 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: <002d01c29cd7$63c87b20$12206418@cr390913a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47832 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > > The thing that gets me most about Quidditch is the 150 pts. Why can't the > > game just be over when the snitch is caught? Or why not 50 points? I mean > > having more than an 150 point difference is SO unlickly it makes the rest > of > > the game almost pointless. Or even, have like a 2 hour time limit on the > > game and if you get the snitch you get the extra opints but if not, the > > games just over. I don't know, it's just unreasonable to me. > > > > Megalynn44 > > > > I guess you haven't read "Quidditch Through The Ages". In 1269 Chief of > Wizards' Council Barberus Bragge brought a bird, a Golden Snidget, to a > Quidditch match. He let it out and said he'll pay 150 galleons to the one > who catches it. It started a tradition that replaced GSnidgets with > GSnitches after the bird almost became extinct. The 150 galleons became 150 > points. > > Alina. Ahh, so theres a backstory to it. Well, we can see where it was established. But looking at the balancing, I can't see too much of a problem. It's supposed to be impossible to catch, and from what Ron tells us of the wizarding world, the big important games have been known to go on for long peroids of times - months and such. Just deviating off a point here for a second - but looking at it in the context of a league, one can't really see how you could plan a league if some games were to go for months, others a matter of minutes. The thing is, if games in Professionalised Quidditch were to run a lot longer than those in School Quidditch, 150 points could be considered too little. The time of the match varies from match to match, so no matter what point margin you give to it, some games it will seem too much, others too little. For example - the game could be 450 points to 100 after 10 hours or something... no matter which seeker gets the snitch, its over. What I found most interesting about the concept of quidditch was why Hogwarts games never last as long as a professional quidditch game. A game that lasts a few months could have quite a catastrophic effect on the education at Hogwarts, especially for the players :). I suppose the only answer is that the seekers at the top level are far more talented, and have the ability to destract each other from the snitch far easier, making use of moves such as the Wronski Feint to distract each other from the snitch. On the point of could quidditch really work, I think it could. I see what the original poster was saying, with the games divided, but I think the role of the seeker is that of a timekeeper. They can decide the length of the game, but in making a decision to go for the snitch, they need to take into consideration the score, and what they hope to achieve. The original poster on this topic said that catching the snitch early on may not be a good thing. I disagree, when the snitch makes an appearence, nobody knows who is going to catch it. By deciding not to catch it, the seeker runs two risks: Firstly, that the other side may outplay his own side, and the other side could amass more than 150 points before the snitch puts in another appearence, and secondly that the person to catch the snitch the second time around may not be himself. Catching it will mean a win, and a win by a larger margin than may have been otherwise attainable. Quidditch could be seen as two games merged into one, but I disagree with that. The requirement on the beaters to defend a seeker and chasers adds a level of complexity to the game, and the fact that the Seeker can be used as an excellent method of distraction [as was done by Harry in the quidditch final that Gryffindor won] proves that when the snitch isn't around, the seeker has duties which tie in with the game. When the snitch puts in an appearence, the seekers are attacked by the other side, trying to block the opposing seeker and allow their own one to get the snitch. The score board will be a deciding factor on the seeker's decision to make a grab for the snitch or allow it to scatter and attempt to block the other seeker. I would imagine that this would be more of a factor in professional quidditch. Well thats my 2 cents for the day. I've been lurking on the group for a while, but never posted. James From k3nny at paradise.net.nz Fri Dec 6 13:15:21 2002 From: k3nny at paradise.net.nz (mythxhp) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:15:21 -0000 Subject: Moody/Crouch - whose personality is it? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021205234527.00b3fbe0@mail.weirdness.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47833 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lucia August wrote: > Greetings, > I'm just wondering if because Crouch has to take so much Polyjuice Potion > that somehow Real!Moody's personality doesn't bleed through into > Fake!Moody's experience. Crouch sure seems convincing as the Real! Moody. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > GalacticLu > An interesting concept. I don't think this possibility is likely, as the attack on the real Moody happens somewhere between the Quidditch world cup and the return to Hogwarts, so the time frame in which the personality of Crouch could 'suddenly adjust' is rather small. Also to the point, when Crouch changes back, he appears to assume his old personality immediately. But I think the real Moody, should we get to meet him in the next book, will be much like the fake Moody was. He seemed to have done his homework with the whole taunting Karkaroff thing. And more to the point, we don't get any indication that Dumbledore suspected him - which is a real feat considering that Dumbledore correctedly suspected Tom Riddle. What I find most interesting is that Harry didn't glance at the map more often in the year and discover that "Barty Crouch" was at Hogwarts in the supposed "Mad-Eye Moody"'s office, or at the very least, that Barty Crouch was at Hogwarts almost at all times, and sometimes was there in two places. James From Lynx412 at aol.com Fri Dec 6 13:13:47 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:13:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some mistakes in book1??? Message-ID: <73.2a1a845f.2b21fc8b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47834 In a message dated 12/5/02 9:37:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, gandharvika at hotmail.com writes: > Can I tell you what bugs me about this whole scenario? When Snape got > wounded, why didn't he go to the infirmary and get himself fixed up? > Instead, he limps around days after the attack. Why does he have Filch > change the bandages instead of Madame Pomfrey? Seems really strange. > Most likely, he didn't want to explain *how* he got that injury... Which leads to a slightly off-topic question...how did Hermione explain her problem in CoS? "Hi, Madam Pomfrey, I've just kinda turned into a humanoid cat... How? Well..." Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Fri Dec 6 13:36:27 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:36:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? Message-ID: <67.3c5ae6d.2b2201db@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47835 I think a good way to describe Quiddich is that it's an extended 'sudden death overtime' game played simultaneously with the standard game. the standard game, as has been commented, is the quaffle/chasers/beaters scoring game and the golden snitch/seeker part is the 'overtime' bit. Two different levels, and each would have it's fans. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 6 15:03:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:03:26 -0000 Subject: The Map was Re: Moody/Crouch - whose personality is it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47836 --- In HPforGrownups at y...,James, "mythxhp" wrote: > What I find most interesting is that Harry didn't glance at the map more often in the year and discover that "Barty Crouch" was at Hogwarts in the supposed "Mad-Eye Moody"'s office, or at the very least, that Barty Crouch was at Hogwarts almost at all times, and sometimes was there in two places. << I think that his experience with Riddle's diary and the length of time it took to make sure the Firebolt was hex-free made Harry *very* cautious about using the Map. By the end of PoA Harry knows the map is partially the creation of someone who became a Dark Wizard. He also knows it was manufactured illegally by students who weren't thinking beyond their immediate needs and were more than capable of taking foolish risks. Who knows how careful they were with their spell work? Pippin From nosref at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 15:09:56 2002 From: nosref at yahoo.com (Fer Mendoza) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:09:56 -0000 Subject: Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: <73.2a1a845f.2b21fc8b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47837 Cheryl asked: > Which leads to a slightly off-topic question...how did Hermione > explain her problem in CoS? "Hi, Madam Pomfrey, I've just kinda > turned into a > humanoid cat... How? Well..." Me: Ron actually explained this to Harry in the second book.(WARNING: not a direct quote) "Good thing Madam Pomfrey doesn't ask questions" or something like that. I guess HRH just had to tell her they were trying a spell and it went wrong. They didn't have to expound. Fer From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Dec 6 15:10:51 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:10:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moody/Crouch Whose personality? / Some mistakes in book1??? Message-ID: <11934342.1039187451928.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47838 Galactic Lu writes: > But all I can think about while reading is Fake!Moody's personality. Whose >personality is it? Is it really Crouch's or is it Real!Moody's? Fake!Moody is >so > gruff and hardened yet kind to Neville after the class experiences the > unforgivable curses. Of course, we find out much later that F!M is >setting Neville up to help HP in the TWTournament. Yet, in my American version >of GOF, Ch. 14, page 220, Neville is feeling proud that Professor Sprout told >Professor Moody that he, Neville, is good in Herbology. Harry thinks that >it was a very tactful way for Professor Moody to cheer up Neville after his >fright of seeing the Cruciatus Curse upon the spider.Doesn't sound to me >as if Crouch really could care less about anyone's feelings but his own. Now me: I think it all was part of Crouch's master plan to get Harry to the third task and ultimately to the graveyard. Remember that during the lesson in which Neville witnessed the Cruciatus curse that his parents were driven insane by, Harry also witnessed the Avada Kedavra curse that his parents were killed by. To me it was just as traumatic for Harry as for Neville, but Neville generally responds more freely with his emotions (that or he was also put under the Cruciatus curse as a small child, but that's another theory alltogether). Fake! Moody's only motive for bringing Neville to his office was to get that book close to Harry with the clue for the second task. What did he do to help Harry, who had just learned exactly how his parents were killed? "All right, Harry?" was about it. And Harry's quick "yes" was as good as a resounding "no." He wasn't all right. Just look at his response to Ron's excitement over the way the spider's life was "snuffed out." And of course once Ron realized what he was saying, he understood that as well. Harry was very shaken up by it, as he should have been, and as Neville was. For Fake! Moody to make a point of saying how the only person to survive an AK was sitting in front of him was his way of making sure Harry knew that was how his parents died. I think inside Crouch was laughing it up. Real!Moody would've had no desire to torture a couple of fourteen year old boys by bringing up a very painful past for both of them. It all boils down to Crouch's incredibly versatile and deceptive personality. He would've been a great guy if he'd chosen the right path instead of the wrong. bboy_mn : > Also, wizards and witches seem very resilient. Neville fell from 50ft > and only broke his wrist. Harry fell from a similar height (onto soft > wet ground) and was unhurt. He was unconcious because of the Dementor, > not because of the fall. That's the equivalent of falling off a FIVE > story building. I think that if Dumbledore hadn't slowed Harry's fall he would have been hurt, and his friends obviously had thought he'd been killed. Dumbledore's quick actions saved Harry on that one. I think it is possible for a witch/wizard to be killed by a fall, or else why would the Quidditch team be so shaken up? Not to mention Ron and Hermione, who were for once, speechless. Hagrid's comments about James and Lily I think referred to, as someone mentioned, the fact that they died in the war with Voldemort, not simply in an accident. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 15:31:55 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:31:55 -0000 Subject: House-Elves and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47839 Acire ("ats_fhc3") wrote: > house-elves don't need to be paid So why couldn't the > Weasleys pick up an elf that had been dismissed? Now me: Good question about why only rich wizards have house-elves when house- elves are unpaid! It could be that having an elf is being presented to us by JKR as a status symbol: you are rich, you have an elf. You are not rich, you do not have an elf. JKR may also be using the elves as a way of characterizing the rich - they're in a different social strata, so they're somehow "entitled" to have an unpaid servant while those less fortunate in the monetary department are stuck with ghouls. And as you point out, the elves that we know of have been with the same family for eons. We haven't heard of a family obtaining an elf when they've never had one before. Dobby tells Harry during their first meeting "Dobby is a house-elf - bound to serve one house and one family for ever...Dobby will serve the family until he dies, sir..." (Ch. 2 CoS, p. 16 UK edition). Which suggests to me that there is a magical bond that keeps the elf with a certain family (unless that elf is presented with clothes and freed, of course). So the only elves that would be shopping around for a job would be those who have been freed, of which we only know of two - Dobby and Winky. Based on the series so far, it appears as if it's relatively rare for an elf to be freed. Dobby tells us in GoF that he's been looking for paid work, which no one wanted to give him since elves usually come for free. Winky doesn't appear to have been looking for work - it's Dobby who brings her to Hogwarts (she probably would have just sat around crying otherwise). Acire again: > Also, how many house-elves would a family have? Me again: Once again, we have only the Malfoys, the Crouches and Hogwarts to go on. Since it appears that the Malfoys only had Dobby and the Crouches only had Winky, while Hogwarts has numerous house-elves, perhaps it's a function of the number of persons who need to be served in a given location (since the Malfoy and Crouch families were only families of 3 while Hogwarts has a large number of students). Acire again: > Lastly, how do...um...we get baby house-elves? Me again: In attempting to formulate an answer to this question, I am conjuring the most unpleasant mental images, so I think I'll leave it at that! Acire again: > If that's true, I'm going to start thinking of joining S.P.E.W. Me again: Well, there is the "Free Dobby" movement going on in New York City if you're interested... ~Phyllis From Audra1976 at aol.com Fri Dec 6 15:47:42 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:47:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moody/Crouch - whose personality is it? Message-ID: <157.187a7672.2b22209e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47840 k3nny at paradise.net.nz writes: << What I find most interesting is that Harry didn't glance at the map more often in the year and discover that "Barty Crouch" was at Hogwarts in the supposed "Mad-Eye Moody"'s office, or at the very least, that Barty Crouch was at Hogwarts almost at all times, and sometimes was there in two places. >> But wait, if Harry looked, he would see Moody was in his office, wouldn't he? That's where the real Moody was, locked in the trunk. And the time he did notice the name "Bartemius Crouch" on the map, he assumed it was Crouch, Sr. He was just heading over to investigate, and he would have figured it out right after he dropped the egg on the staircase if the map hadn't been to far away for him to reach. Crouch-as-Moody pocketed that map very quickly when he knew what it was, because it said "Bartemius Crouch" was standing there with Harry, Filch, and Snape. Crouch-as-Moody questioned Harry to make sure he wasn't on to him, then he asked to keep the map. Harry didn't notice that Crouch and Moody were in Moody's office together so often before that because Harry didn't have any reason to keep looking at Moody's office. He only used the map when he was sneaking around, looking at the spot where he was, and making sure nobody was coming around that area, mostly looking out for Filch and Mrs. Norris. Audra From EilanofAlbion at gmx.net Fri Dec 6 15:18:19 2002 From: EilanofAlbion at gmx.net (Eilan) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:18:19 -0000 Subject: Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47841 > Ron actually explained this to Harry in the second book.(WARNING: not > a direct quote) "Good thing Madam Pomfrey doesn't ask questions" or > something like that. He did indee dsay something like that (only have the German translation of the book). I guess Madam Pomfrey is known around the students for not asking questions if they turn up 'damaged' after a spell they shouldn't even have tried went wrong. Although it really would surprise me if something like turning halfway in a cat would happen every day. Eilan From EilanofAlbion at gmx.net Fri Dec 6 15:20:46 2002 From: EilanofAlbion at gmx.net (Eilan) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:20:46 -0000 Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: <11934342.1039187451928.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47842 > bboy_mn : > > > Also, wizards and witches seem very resilient. Neville fell from 50ft > > and only broke his wrist. Are you referring to when he falls down on their first day of flying practise? Because I think it would be possible that the ground of the Quidditch pitch was put under some sort of spell (at least when the first years learn to fly), so it won't hurt that much to fall off one's broom. Eilan From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 14:23:11 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:23:11 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moody/Crouch - whose personality is it? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021205234527.00b3fbe0@mail.weirdness.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47843 I've been thinking about that myself. I suspect that there is a variant of polyjuice that 'overlays' the user's mind with a version of the person they are impersonating so that the pretence is complete. This would account for how Dumbledore was fooled. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 15:59:12 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:59:12 -0000 Subject: House-Elves and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47844 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ats_fhc3" wrote: > So why couldn't the Weasleys pick up an elf that had > been dismissed? > > Also, how many house-elves would a family have? Winky was the only > elf to serve the Crouches; When Harry indirectly frees Dobby, Lucius > says "You've lost me my servant". Not '*one* of my servants', > but '*servant*'. Would other families have reason to have more house- > elves? I think - and this is /only/ a guess, mind - that it takes some mighty powerful magic to bind a house-elf to a family. This would explain why only rich families had one and most elves have been passed down. A rich family can pay some hotshot young punk with a quick wand to battle one of the elves, and if the punk gets toasted, well, all you've lost is a bunch of Galleons. CK clicketykeys From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Dec 6 16:00:00 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:00:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.) Message-ID: <140.45d870f.2b222380@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47845 Melody: > Why? Why, oh why, did I take on the uncertainty of meta-thinking? > How is it that all the educated, well-read minds of HPfGU always > manage to get tripped up on this word. Probably because it doesn't exist. > Eloise: Precisely. You (the MDDT - I know you didn't coin the usage yourself, Melody) have introduced a very technical-sounding word that simply does not exist in the dictionary and is not normally used outside a very limited (and different) field. It is not helpful. I do wonder what newbies who stumble on these conversations think. Melody: <>> That is why CK I *cannot* give you the citation for my definition of > metathinking as you requested. It has none. Only thing I can offer > really is a breakdown of the word which really does not reveal much. > > <> > Anyway, I digress a bit...like normal, we are trying to hammer down > this meta-thinking definition. And why is this *so* important? > Probably because, we the MD three, use it so much as a red flag. And > we don't want to be seen as having a mutable red flag. ;) Eloise: Oh no! I've only just found out what a (real) yellow flag is! ;-) We do things slightly differently over here, you know. But yes, I think you have put your finger on one of the major problems.You three *do* use it as a red flag. And we do see it as mutable, because we never know what the definition of meta-thinking is going to be. Except that it is bound to include whatever problem we have just articulated. ;-) And I think that the very existence of a red flag on the list is... Oh, I don't know how to put this. I think yellow flags are fine (although I do recall some controversy around their first arrival). Yellow flags say simply, your theory depends on something for which there is no canon evidence, say an invented spell. But red flags seem to say, 'You cannot use on MD any of the normal methods by which you evaluate a theory. You may only criticise if you adopt our viewpoint.' And as it's the viewpoint itself which causes the problem we reach an impasse. As Eileen said, >>Now this is where I've never been able to follow the MD-ers. It never occured to me that criticism of a theory is limited to the theory's viewpoints. << And this is one of the places where I disagree with Grey Wolf's assertion that MD is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are open to scrutiny in a way in which MD apparently isn't. Yes, experiments are confirmed by replication, but they can also be tested by by applying *different* criteria. More importantly, I am uncomfortable with the idea of there being any red flags on this list at all (other than those applying to the contentious issues that we all agree not to discuss). It seems alien to the spirit of the list and is likely to stifle discussion as well as cause ill-feeling amongst those whose views are dismissed. Melody: > > This is also important because I disagree with CK when she said: > >Now, if the MD supporters are going to say, "well, that's not > >metathinking," that's fine. Clearly we have different ideas on what > >precisely constitutes metathinking, and I'm fine with simply agreeing > >to disagree. > > I don't think we can agree to disagree on what this definition should > be. It is too important. I mean we *all* use it in sentences, so it > greatly helps if we all know the translation of such a foreign word. Eloise: We only use it in sentences because the MDDT do, so we have to. Or at least, that's the only reason I do. I suspect I'm speaking for others, but maybe I'm wrong. My fear is that it *doesn't* translate into anything we non-MDers would recognise as a valid concept. Melody: > > And I thought Pip put it nicely - it is an outside view on a world > > A view that removes itself from the rules of *that* world. > > Her exact quote from post#47047 > >'Metathinking' - it's a question of levels. DISHWASHER is based on > >a 'within the book' viewpoint, where the books and characters are > >treated as if they are real events, real characters, and real > >motivations. In that context, going up a level so you're looking at > >the books from the OUTSIDE is regarded as 'not fair play' simply > >because the theory doesn't have that viewpoint. > > So the reason why it is not considered fair to use meta-thinking > against MD is that MD never factors in its equation that the story is > in fact a story written by an author. MD is purely grounded in the > book text. On the actions and limits of the world given. To go > outside the world is an attempt to trump all those rules of a world by > going straight to the maker. And this trumps the canon, because JKR > is God. She alone decides what can and cannot happen. We (MD > Defense) cannot deny that, but we can call "Foul!" ourselves, because > we were playing by different rules. Eloise: Finger on another problem! (Or is it the same one?) You are playing a game according to 'no trumps' rules that the rest of us usually play *with* trumps. But again, I sense that you're using meta-thinking to equal authorial intent. Taking an 'outside' view is not necessarily trying to guess JKR's intent. Some of what MDers regard as an 'outside' view, which therefore gets called meta-thinking is simply the application of information about the themes and concerns of the series gleaned from 'inside' the book. And I think perhaps 'trumping' is putting it too strongly. It's not so much 'Our evidence is stronger than your evidence: we're right, you're wrong' as asking you to consider other evidence in addition to the 'inside' view. Melody: > > I ask you. Do you think we *can't* take MD into the meta-thinking > world? Pip, Grey, and I are perfectly capable of reading with > meta-thinking glasses (well Grey *says* he can't) but we chose not to > in this instance because we want to discuss the books from within the > books. It is a much harder feat to limit yourself. Eloise: No, I don't think you *can't*, but for some reason you won't, which has the unfortunate side-effect of tending to make what should be dicussions seem more like disputes. Melody: > So let's just tackle the questions placed on the table and I think > I'll start with Iris: > > Iris wrote: > >We don?t have to forget that writing is an art, and that an artwork > >can?t be understood completely if we separate it from what makes it > >exist: the artist, the society the artist lives in, and the artistic > >sources he or she uses to work. > > :) Iris. Like all works by man, there are many valid, wonderful > points of views to it. Let's use sculpture since it works well here. > One can look at all views, or one can focus on just one. When > someone focuses on just one view, then it seems only fair that their > critics also hunch down and look from their point of view too. Then > true critic of just *that* point of view can occur. > > This does not deny that other viewpoints exist, but only that this one > is the focus of the moment. > > Now when MD says it is based solely on canon, then it is hunching > itself over and looking only from that point of view. It also asks > that of its critics. That way, if something is wrong in that point of > view, then the critics are at the right advantage point to find the > critic. Eloise: OK. So we all agree that MD takes a limited viewpoint. Yes, you can look at a sculpture from just one angle, but who would try to interpret what a sculpture meant from just one angle, without considering the other sides? So yes, I'll hunker down and look at canon from you viewpoint - I have - and I see that from that viewpoint you have a valid interpretation. I've never denied it. But I ask you to do in return to come with me and look at the sculpture in the round, to see if that might not add meaning to the view on which you've been concentrating. MD is a theory built on one viewpoint only. One of the distinguishing things about the human brain is that it is able to assimilate different views of a three dimensional object and put them together to interpret that object in a different way from if it was only able to interpret one view at a time. To use another analogy, it's a bit like one of those puzzle pictures. You know, the ones where they have a close up view of something and you have to try and work out what it is. They are often very misleading, until you start to draw out and view the wider picture. Yes, you can decide to look at the text from one viewpoint only, but I question the validity of constructing a theory based on such a limited viewpoint. Yes, I agree, it is much harder to limit yourself in that way; I can't see why one should, except as an interesting academic exercise. You see, if I were writing an essay on all this, I might say something along the lines of, "If we were to confine our view to that of the characters within the book, then........."etc, etc, expound MD theory, but then I would be bound to counter it by saying, "But...." and giving other perspectives. Otherwise there would be no balance. And being me, I'd probably come to no firm conclusion! Melody: > --------CK's problem with Pip saying: > >[Pip] One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is > >the Voldemort-Potter war?' The answer is that it's an undercover > >sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war. > > <> Eloise: I'm skipping the IRA parallel, because I just can't follow it! My poor brain can only cope with so much! I'll leave it to CK, whose baby it is! :-) Melody: > ---- > > Melody said: > > Meta-thinking is *not* comparing the book to life adventures but > > making assertions about the book because it is a book. That is RL in > > this definition. > > Eliose said: > >I think you here highlight a problem that some of us have with MD. > >Every time someone articulates a problem, the MD Defense Team (you > >don't know how hard it is to spell American!) pulls out a new and > >unexpected definition. Now you have your own definition of RL. > > Eloise, from my point of view, every time someone attacks MD they > create a new view of meta-thinking that needs to be defined and qualified. Eloise: Only because we don't know what meta-thinking is! I'm not aware of creating new views of it. I'm just trying to work out what the devil it means. For myself, every time I think I've got a handle on it, I find that I'm wrong. It's like trying to grasp air. If meta-thinking is to be a term of any use, it has to be clearly defined in a way that we all understand and can agree upon. That is clearly not the case at the moment. And I'm not attacking MD. I'm quite happy to accept it as a view. I will defend it's right to be under circumstances in which it's creators will abandon it, as I have previously pointed out. What I query are the methodology leading to it and the surrounding concepts which seem very hard to pin down and which seem to have turned it from one view among many into something unassailable. Melody: > Oh, and spell MD defense team as you will. Far be it for me to say > how you should and should not spell. :) Eloise: Thank you! I've got round the problem by abbreviating. That way we can use two spellings simultaneously! I like doing that sort of thing. I think it was before your time that I had to enter a parallel universe in search of Fourth Man. That's why there's a Parallel Universe Fourth Man Hovercraft (was it a hovercraft, Debbie? I forget). I crew on both Fourth Man and Parallel Universe Fourth Man simultaneously, as this enables me to carry on believing that Fourth Man both is and is not Avery. Melody: > Eloise wrote: > >What you basically seem to be saying is that meta-thinking = using > >any of the tools of literary criticism, but then giving only the > >crudest examples of their use, as Grey Wolf did also. As Grey Wolf > >was courteous enough to acknowledge, though, those who indulge in > >meta-thinking tend to be a little better at it than that. > > OK, that hurt Eloise. I am sorry if my examples were "the crudest > examples" of literary criticism, and I am sorry if I somehow insulted > those who are obviously better at it than I alluded. Yes I did over > simplify. Something I *love* to do in Math, but this is English Lit. > I apologies if anyone was hurt in the process of my examples. I > meant no harm. I only wanted to find an example for each point, not > point a finger at each person. Eloise: And I apologise too. I had no intention whatsoever of hurting you, Melody. But yes, since you mention it, I was a little stung and did find the examples given a little insulting. At the time I was trying to avoid using the word 'insulting' in order not to sound as if I was taking it personally. I'm sorry it backfired. Honest. Can we be friends? Pretty please? I don't regard any of this argument as personal. Please understand that though I may be an argumentative old cow, my arguing says nothing whatsoever about my feelings about the people with whom I'm arguing. It's about theories, not people, as has been mentioned before. Melody: > <> > So really, all this discussion revolving around whether MD should > allow meta-thinking to be accepted as fair criticism. A criticism > that could disprove MD. I mean y'all can place argument after > argument on the table and believe yourself that it disproves MD, but > why must *we the MD three* accept that? From our "hunched over point > of view," your critic does not apply. It is not taking into account > what we see. Eloise: You don't have to accept anything whatsoever. And, as I keep saying, I, for one, am not trying to *disprove* MD. But I do have problems with the viewpoint it adopts. I do have problems with red flags being waved in my face. I do have problems with not being able to hold a discussion where we all use words and terms to mean the same thing. I especially have problems with the introduction and use of a term on this list which no-one seems fully to understand (particularly when it doubles as a red flag). I have problems with the (no doubt unintentional) implication that the MDers' view is more canonical than my point of view. I also have problems with the assertion that it's more objective or scientific than my point of view. Let me go back to Pip's explanation of the 'inside out' approach: Pip: > The other viewpoint is that of the characters within the text (it's > this viewpoint that an actor who has to perform the text often > takes). This is the 'inside out' approach. > > This approach considers what do the characters actually do, what do > other characters say about them, what do they say about other > characters - in other words, their words and actions. > > In a Stanislavskian approach, you would treat the characters as if > they were real people, with real motivations, in a real world. And > you would try and work out whether they *are* always saying exactly > what they mean, or if there is something else going on underneath. That is my point. "You would try to work out". Even in the 'inside out' approach, at the end of the day it is your subjective *opinion*, as to whether the characters are saying exactly what they mean or whether there's something else going on underneath. Or is there only *one* Stanislavskian interpretation of any piece of writing? It is the MDers opinion that there is more going on underneath. But you have chosen to believe that. (I know you'll tell me you haven't! ;-) )You have decided that characters are dissembling. Is it not possible to view events from inside out without that assumption? Wouldn't that alter the theory? In other words, couldn't someone else come along and do a Stanislavskian interpretation and come to different conclusions? (I'm genuinely asking.) Melody: > Now you can attack the reason why we are "hunched over" and you can > say we are silly for limiting ourselves, but that does not create a > good critic of the theory itself. > Eloise: No, it doesn't create a good critique of the theory, but it does question the methodology behind the theory. Melody: All we ask is for you to come on > over (I promise we don't bit...well Grey might, and Pip and I might if > provoked ), get hunched yourself, and peer at the HP sculpture > from our point-of-view. If you still don't see it our way, then that > is fine. Just expect us to defend our view with gusto. ;) I wouldn't expect anything less, Melody! But please don't bite me ;-) ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mo.hue at web.de Fri Dec 6 16:42:00 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:42:00 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] other POA thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <20021204153317.62303.qmail@web20007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47846 On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:58:40 -0000, "dowen331" wrote: >P. 327, as HRH are getting ready to go down to Hagrid's hut right >before Buckbeak's execution, they are waiting for the entrance hall >to clear, hiding in an empty chamber. "They heard a last pair of >people hurrying across the hall and a door slamming." This time >around it hit me: *They heard themselves!!* It was time-travel!HH >that were hurrying into a closet and slamming the door right before >they went out! I never noticed that before--thanks for letting me >share my moment of discovery :-). Isn't it great that we don't get so many details on our first and even second or third read? ;-) The first time I read PoA, I didn't get the whole time travel thing until Hermione revealed it, and I certainly didn't make the connection between Sirius -> Dog Star and the great black dog. In hindsight I'd say Sirius had the word "Animagus" written in shining letters on his forehead, but I'm hopeless at solving mysteries. >Finally, a question of accuracy: p. 370: Is it a known FLINT (is >that the right term?) when Sirius says to Peter (in the Shrieking >Shack): "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's >half dead." By my count he's been in hiding for 12 or 13 years at >the most at this point, so where does 15 come from? It seems to be a printing error that has never been corrected in the American editions of PoA. In my Bloomsbury paperback it says "12 years", I don't know about the British hardcover, but the German translation which follows the British editions also says "12 years" (if I remember well, don't have them at hand to check). Monika From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 16:29:52 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:29:52 -0000 Subject: Some mistakes in book1??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47847 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Maria Kirilenko wrote: MARIA said: >>> 2. During the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch match Lee Jordan says a Bludger hit Katie Bell (or one of the other Chasers, don't remember) on the back of the head. She's probably have a concussion - since Bludgers apparently hit with a strong enough force to break an arm. >>> bboy_mn responds: >>> If it hit her on the BACK of the head then, in a dynamic game like Quidditch, it is likely that she was moving forward when it happened. That forward movement would have softened the blow. Also, it's not clear that it hit her square and blunt on the back of the head (from memory), so it may have been a glancing blow. >>> Now me: Both points raised here are valid, but I think it might be a good idea here to point out that Bludgers, like almost everything else in Potterverse, are *magical* objects. They are supposed to attack all players equally, but there's nothing to say that they always move with the same velocity or force, in fact, they probably move in quite random patterns with varying speeds. (unless this is mentioned somewhere in QTTA, which I haven't read. In that case, I apologize) It's also possible that magic was used to soften the blow. We know from GoF that cheating isn't a strictly Muggle phenonmenon. =) It's possible that the bludger had been tampered with (although there seems to be no reason for this) or that some well-meaning fan interfered with the possibly dangerous path of the bludger. Just some thoughts. -Laura From dom-blokey at supanet.com Fri Dec 6 16:41:06 2002 From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:41:06 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? References: Message-ID: <014a01c29d46$629308f0$3b4428d5@Blokey> No: HPFGUIDX 47848 Paul: > The way it stands, catching the > snitch almost always wins the game, and on the odd occaision when one > team is so much better than another that a 150 point gap opens up, the > seeker on the losing team can't catch the snitch (I still can't fathom > why Krum lost his team the chance of winning the world cup...) > Me: the way I see it, Krum knows that his team have absolutely no chance of coming back and winning, they're getting slaughtered by the Irish are they not? Catching the snitch is kinda like (as discussed elsewhere) another, seperate game. Krum takes the chance to catch the snitch to gain that honour for himself and the team. Its a bit like soccer again I guess, most players would say one of the greatest honours/dreams/whatever would be to score a goal in the world cup final, the same could be assumed for quidditch. also by catching the snitch and getting 150 points, it makes the score a lot closer and therefore a lot less embarassing. One day the Bulgarians may be able to try the 'we were winning until they caught the snitch' line :) As far as the Harry delaying the catch until 50 points up thread goes, I presume that the table does take into account a points difference when two teams are otherwise level. in this situation, I'd say slytherin and gryffindor would be level in the table in gryff beat slyth, but slyth would have a greater points difference and so be declared the winners. by getting a 200 points difference (50 from quaffle play, and 150 from snitch catch) gryffindor would make a huge difference by also making slytherins points diff 200 worse than it started. Still with me? either way, this scenario would put G+S joint top of the table, but G winning on points difference. Ps: completed the CoS game on my PS2 the other day, quidditch in that way quite fun (and frustrating) Dom, From sgarfio at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 17:17:41 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:17:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021206171741.36792.qmail@web21413.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47849 Welcome, James! James wrote: > Just deviating off a point here for a second - but looking at it in > the context of a league, one can't really see how you could plan a > league if some games were to go for months, others a matter of > minutes. Yes, I've wondered about this too. The only definitive answer I've come up with is - it's magic . I would guess that matches are scheduled rather tentatively. Perhaps very few official matches are scheduled at once, and if one of the scheduled teams is still engaged in a match that has lasted a long time, they could put another team in. The rest of the teams would be practicing amongst themselves or holding unofficial matches. Or, and I like this idea better, maybe there's no official professional Quidditch "season", and they just keep playing teams against each other two at a time in a round-robin fashion until two teams emerge as the ones to play in the Cup. Whenever one match finishes, the next match can begin. It takes a long time to get through everybody, and that's why the Cup doesn't happen every year. The WW doesn't seem quite as organized as ours, so maybe they don't expect Quidditch to be so strictly scheduled. They have tickets to the Cannons/Wasps match, which is whenever the Magpies/Bats match ends, rather than on a particular date. > What I found most interesting about the concept of quidditch was why > Hogwarts games never last as long as a professional quidditch game. A > game that lasts a few months could have quite a catastrophic effect > on the education at Hogwarts, especially for the players :). I > suppose the only answer is that the seekers at the top level are far > more talented, and have the ability to destract each other from the > snitch far easier, making use of moves such as the Wronski Feint to > distract each other from the snitch. One possibility: the Hogwarts Snitch is a student model (perhaps all of the balls are). It's enchanted to get easier to catch the longer the match goes on, so that if it continues past lights-out, the Snitch will pretty much just fly into the nearest Seeker's hand. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From bkb042 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 17:45:17 2002 From: bkb042 at yahoo.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:45:17 -0000 Subject: Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47850 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fer Mendoza" wrote: > Cheryl asked: > > > Which leads to a slightly off-topic question...how did Hermione > > explain her problem in CoS? "Hi, Madam Pomfrey, I've just kinda > > turned into a > > humanoid cat... How? Well..." > > Fer: > > Ron actually explained this to Harry in the second book.(WARNING: not > a direct quote) "Good thing Madam Pomfrey doesn't ask questions" or > something like that. I guess HRH just had to tell her they were > trying a spell and it went wrong. They didn't have to expound. > Speaking as a former US Army medic, whose responsibilities were similar to a scool nurse's (treating boisterous "children" who sometimes did things that they weren't supposed to), I have to say that I have an issue or two with Pomphrey's apparent handling of the situation. Hermione's mishap with the polyjuice cannot be discounted as "just a spell that went wrong"; It was the real world equivalent of kids whipping up some bathtub gin or methamphetamine, and ODing on it. Snape described it, IIRC, as an "illicit" mixture, the recipe was kept only in the restricted section of the library (which brings fraud into the equasion, but I won't get into that here), several ingredients were what we would refer to as "controlled items"(boomslang skin, bicorn horn), and they had to resort to assault and larceny to obtain them. While we don't know for sure what, if anything was said to Dumbledore about Hermione's condition, I refuse to believe that Pomphrey is so incompetant as to not correctly diagnose the cause of the ailment! Neville being turned into a canary could be dismissed as a case of "boys will be boys" once you consider the source, and more importantly, the METHOD. What HRH did with the polyjuice wasn't just irresponsible; It was CRIMINAL on several points. Ok, I'm done ranting now. bkb042 From dom-blokey at supanet.com Fri Dec 6 17:26:08 2002 From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:26:08 -0000 Subject: Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey Message-ID: <01ba01c29d4c$ab0b1220$3b4428d5@Blokey> No: HPFGUIDX 47851 Eilan: > He did indee dsay something like that (only have the German > translation of the book). I guess Madam Pomfrey is known around the > students for not asking questions if they turn up 'damaged' after a > spell they shouldn't even have tried went wrong. Although it really > would surprise me if something like turning halfway in a cat would > happen every day. > Me: Yeah, something like 'lets take her to Mdme Pomfrey, she never asks too many questions.' My personal favourite quote regarding the polyjuice, Hermione: 'pull out a few of their hairs and then hide them in the broom cupboard.' Why would they want to hide the hairs in hte broom cupboard? would Crabbe and Goyle really want to go looking for them?! ;-) Going back to a previous thread (can't remember if it was here or the HPMovie list) if Draco didn't get too suspicious about the odd behaviour of Crabbe and Goyle (ie: Harry and Ron) would he not get suspicious when the real C+G return with their news? Or would they be too embarassed to tell him that they woke up together in a cupboard? It's just a good job Hermione supplied the robes the Gryffindor's would be wearing... Dom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From princess_tx at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 17:58:07 2002 From: princess_tx at yahoo.com (Sarmi) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:58:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021206175807.76461.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47852 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fer Mendoza" wrote: > Cheryl asked: > > > Which leads to a slightly off-topic question...how did Hermione explain her problem in CoS? "Hi, Madam Pomfrey, I've just kinda turned into a humanoid cat...How? Well..." > > Fer: > > Ron actually explained this to Harry in the second book.(WARNING: not a direct quote) "Good thing Madam Pomfrey doesn't ask questions" or something like that. I guess HRH just had to tell her they were trying a spell and it went wrong. They didn't have to expound. Brian wrote: While we don't know for sure what, if anything was said to Dumbledore about Hermione's condition, I refuse to believe that Pomphrey is so incompetant as to not correctly diagnose the cause of the ailment! Neville being turned into a canary could be dismissed as a case of "boys will be boys" once you consider the source, and more importantly, the METHOD. What HRH did with the polyjuice wasn't just irresponsible; It was CRIMINAL on several points. I agree partly here. I do believe that Madam Pomphrey knew what caused Hermione's transformation. However, I can see that she's able to turn the other cheek. These kids come in with injuries or mishaps from who knows what. I'm pretty sure at one point she just stopped asking why they did it and just treated them, sometimes it's just better to not know why. A good Nurse could only ask questions of those students who seem to be repeat offenders and have a certain pattern to it. Hermione has never been in the Hospital Wing before so Madam Pomphfrey could have decided to let it slide this time. Sarmi --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 6 18:28:10 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 18:28:10 -0000 Subject: Meta-Thinking and Magic Dishwasher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47853 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > In the end, as I said, metathinking makes it or breaks it for me. > LYCANTHROPE I've always found fascinating, and they have heaps of canon evidence, but it's metathinking that means you won't see me inthat organization any day soon. (We won't go into why exactly here.)<< Fascinating! It's only considerations of theme and structure that make me think LYCANTHROPE has any possibility of being more than a literary parlor trick, despite all the canon I've dredged up in support of it. So even though LYCANTHROPE (why didn't I just call it LIE?) can be derived from "inside the story", I am perfectly willing to discuss it in terms of theme and structure. Whenever you're ready, Eileen. I think there are already words, derived like 'canon' from theological studies, for the different types of interpretation we are trying to do. For example, exegesis is the interpretation of a (biblical) text in order to determine its intended meaning. I think what the Magic Dishwasher Defense Team is trying to tell us is that they are not interested in any exegesis that relies on a general analysis of theme and structure to reveal the author's intent. In their view, the author's intent is revealed only by her statements. If she makes a statement about theme and structure, theme and structure will become 'fair play', just as morality is, because JKR has made statements about morality. (The study of what sort of exegesis is allowable is 'hermenuetics' and is normally limited to biblical studies since outside of religion (and fandom?) it is not an issue whether one kind of interpretation is more 'genuine and inspired' than others. ) I hope I have got that right, I am not a theologian. The MDDT has decided to throw a curtain over theme and structure and told us not to pay attention to the little man behind it. Which decision I respect. They've simply served notice that *they're* not willing to discuss or defend MD on those grounds. That doesn't, or shouldn't, mean that the theory isn't open to criticism on a thematic or structural level. But we'll be talking to ourselves. To carry Pip's acting analogy a little further, if her Stanislavskian analysis of a character leads her to perform it in some way which the director thinks is out of keeping with the theme or structure of the play, that doesn't by any means invalidate Pip's interpretation or make it less entertaining, but it does mean that the director may not approve of it. So be it. I'm quite entertained by the discussion though I think the whole meta-thinking issue is but a wave of the magician's wand to distract us from the sleight-of -hand going on elsewhere. But it would be churlish to point that out Pippin From robgonz0 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 18:29:41 2002 From: robgonz0 at yahoo.com (Robert Gonzalez) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:29:41 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) References: <20021206175807.76461.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01b001c29d55$71b89b60$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> No: HPFGUIDX 47854 > Brian wrote: > > While we don't know for sure what, if anything was said to Dumbledore about Hermione's condition, I refuse to believe that Pomphrey is so incompetant as to not correctly diagnose the cause of the ailment! > Sarmi: > I agree partly here. I do believe that Madam Pomphrey knew what caused Hermione's transformation. However, I can see that she's able to turn the other cheek. These kids come in with injuries or mishaps from who knows what. I'm pretty sure at one point she just stopped asking why they did it and just treated them, sometimes it's just better to not know why. Me: Madam Pomphrey might have another reason to not ask too many questions. If she becomes known as a snitch who will report you for doing something illicit then students may stop coming to her when they have accidents. The consequences of students trying to treat themselves could be worse than a policy of not asking more than neccessary to treat the injury. Rob From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 6 18:28:56 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:28:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-Elves and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <143664050757.20021206102856@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47855 Hi, Thursday, December 05, 2002, 10:41:28 PM, ats_fhc3 wrote: > House-elves come with big old manors and > castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house..." > (CoS, pg. 29, paperback, US Edition). > Granted, house-elves are probably passes on in families, as Winky > later tells HHR that her mother and her grandmother were serving the > Crouches. However, house-elves don't need to be paid (unless you're > talking to Hermione). And, now, there's a certain house-elf who has > lost her job...Yes, Winky. Or maybe the house elves discriminate against certain wizard families and don't want to be associated with a poor family, or one that hasn't been around for ages . I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about house elves and their powers in future books. I hope to find out why they are bound to *their* families the way they are and why Dobby seems to be the only one who rebels against his "master". Is the Malfoy family the exception in treating their house elf badly? Was Winky, for example, treated well before the happenings in GoF? If I were Dumbledore, I'd contact the house elves for the fight against Lord Voldemort. They certainly seem to have very strong powers. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Fri Dec 6 19:30:06 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (Beth Loubet) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:30:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking References: <1039162621.1640.63729.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003b01c29d5d$e590b2e0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> No: HPFGUIDX 47856 > From: "Melody" > Subject: Re: Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.) > > Ohhh, my head hurts. > > Why? Why, oh why, did I take on the uncertainty of meta-thinking? > How is it that all the educated, well-read minds of HPfGU always > manage to get tripped up on this word. Probably because it doesn't exist. > > And that is where the problem lies. If I look in my Webster's > unabridged, I find metaphysics, metastable, even metastasis (which I > cannot even pronounce) but not metathinking. How incredibly > frustrating...for both sides here. > > That is why CK I *cannot* give you the citation for my definition of > metathinking as you requested. It has none. Only thing I can offer > really is a breakdown of the word which really does not reveal much. http://www.buildfreedom.com/content/metathinking_explained.shtml This seems to be by someone claiming to have coined the term, though I didn't read it thoroughly enough to be sure. It does seem to apply to our discussion, though. According to most of the articles I glanced at (plugging "metathinking" into Google search), metathinking is simply "the study of thinking". Thinking about thinking, in other words. "Meta-" is basically used to describe the thought process of pulling back another level from a study of something to study the study itself. (I.e., "anthropology" is the study of man. "Meta-anthropology" would be the study of anthropology.) This makes me wonder, in a way, if metathinking is exactly the term we want here. Perhaps it is, because when we're looking at HP as a book, with all of the external influences that implies, we're studying JKR's thought processes when she writes. On the other hand, we're still studying her mental processes, in a way, when we're observing her characters as "people" and trying to discern the meanings behind their actions. Are studying the characters from the inside and studying the books from the outside BOTH metathinking? Personally, I feel that when we deal with the books "from the outside", we're dabbling in literary criticism. When we deal with them "from the inside", we're still indulging in literary criticism (they're still books, after all), but with a much more narrowed focus, employing psychology, anthropology, sociology, and other hidden talents and interests we have to examine motive, responsibility, and plot potential. Having talked myself in a circle , I can now see in a way where the "meta-" came in. The books are JKR's study of her characters and universe. When we pull back a level, we're studying her study, hence the meta-. But I'd still have to twitch at the use of "metathinking" here, for reasons expressed above. I think we're rather "metapottering". I can't decide whether I'm kidding with that last line or not... bel From smiller_92407 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 19:50:05 2002 From: smiller_92407 at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 19:50:05 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47857 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Megalynn S." wrote: > The thing that gets me most about Quidditch is the 150 pts. Why can't the > game just be over when the snitch is caught? Or why not 50 points? My complaint about Quidditch is along the same lines. Why is it 10 points for a goal and 150 points for a snitch catch? Why not 1 and 15? Just to have the points rack up to a high score? I presume they just have the trailing zero painted on the scoreboard since it can't be anything else. And furthermore - why don't they wear helmets? In the MTMNBN (maybe in the book, too, I don't remember) they wear gloves and shin pads, providing protection where it isn't needed, but nothing where it could do some good. ~ Constance Vigilance ~ From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 20:07:50 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 20:07:50 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Orphanages (WAS Hagrid's Personality) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47858 Sherry wrote: >Shane wrote (after his wonderful treatise of Hagrid) > There's also > the >possibility that there are some wizarding orphanages. Me now: Thanks for the nice comment Sherry. I'm glad you liked the Hagrid post. Sherry again: >Certainly the VoldeWars would have necessitated some kind of orphan-care >arrangement if there had been none before, although that would have been >after Hagrid's time. But something else occurred to me in reading this. Why >would Tom Riddle have been sent back to the *Muggle* orphanage if Hogwarts >were closed? Me: This occurred to me too, and I've re-read the relevant passages in CoS and GoF which deal with Tom Riddle's and Hagrid's situations and in GoF we also hear of the Neville situation, another example which, in the MW, would be dealt with by social workers if there was no family to step in. In none of these cases is there any mention of a wizarding social services or of any formalised response to child-care or child protection needs. If we look at the case of Harry himself, (I know that there is an extraneous reason for Harry's situation, the magical protection provided by his family etc) there is never even a discussion of keeping him in the WW or having him fostered by a wizard family. Dumbledore must have known that he was sending Harry into years of emotional and often physical neglect, not to mention the psychological abuse, but it seemed that that was the only option. Now, some thoughts have occurred to me in relation to this stuff: (1) Child neglect, child abuse (sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological) psychiatric illness and physical illness are universal. In the MW they cross class divides and are present in every country. I refuse to accept that the WW has in some way stamped them out and is not troubled by these very real problems. If we accept this, we must accept that the WW at least has a *need* for some form of social services, including some form of residential child care services. (2) I have, however, noticed that, despite the very obvious presence in the canon of abuse issues, the *attitude* towards it seems to be very different to ours. The treatment of Harry by the Death-Eaters, and subsequently by Dumbldore et al, at the end of GoF is a classic example: a child, after witnessing the brutal murder of a friend, is tortured and almost killed for the gratification of a group of adults (again, I know that there were larger reasons in terms of the magical plot, but that aside, it still constitutes child abuse). Harry, after his escape has a few nice chats with Dumbledore, is given the wizard equivalent of a sleeping pill, has a bit of a cuddle with Mrs Weasley and then is sent on his way back to a summer of (at best) neglect with the Dursleys! Is any counselling sought out for him? No! This strikes me as incredibly cold and callous. I know that there is the whole magic protection thing going on at Dursleys, but couldn't Dumbledore have sent a message stating that Harry had been unavoidably detained at Hogwarts, and arrange some form of more in-depth therapy? Do wizards have a different undertanding of the effects of trauma? (3) Sherry wrote: >But then, maybe I've just answered Shane's question: there are no Wizarding >orphanages, or Tom Riddle would have been sent to one over summers; Maybe this *is* the case. Maybe all social care issues in the WW are dealt with within the community. Maybe that was why Dumbledore was so interested in taking Hagrid in after his expulsion. Maybe there just wasn't a support infra-structure there to deal with his placement. With no family there to take him in, he would have been left to fend for himself, and, as I've already discussed, Hagrid would have ended up in a lot of trouble if left to his own devices! This could also explain Tom Riddle's being sent back to a Muggle orphanage, Harry's being dealt with by Muggle relatives, Neville being raised by extended family etc. Child care issues seem, within the WW, to be responded to familially. This may simply be the cultural heritage within the WW. Social services as we know them are perhaps perceived as being largely ineffective by the WW (and god knows, there *is* a strong argument that this is an accurate perception) and that family is the best response. Where there is no family, benevolent adults like Dumbledore step in to help out. In Tom Riddle's case, we can assume that Dippet, the Headmaster during Riddle's time at Hogwarts was less benevolent than Dumbledore, and also that Dumbledore, who seemed to see something unsavoury in Riddle, was not inclined to step in and help him because of his instincts that something wasn't right. Well , that's it for now. Take it easy, Shane. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From kaityf at jorsm.com Fri Dec 6 20:23:00 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:23:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking In-Reply-To: <003b01c29d5d$e590b2e0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> References: <1039162621.1640.63729.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021206134246.031a49c0@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47859 bel wrote: >According to most of the articles I glanced at (plugging "metathinking" into >Google search), metathinking is simply "the study of thinking". Thinking >about thinking, in other words. "Meta-" is basically used to describe the >thought process of pulling back another level from a study of something to >study the study itself. As far as I understand the use of "meta" this is absolutely correct. Metalanguage is language about language and meta-analysis is an analysis of analyses. Metathinking is the thinking about thinking. >This makes me wonder, in a way, if metathinking is exactly the term we want >here. I've stayed away from this discussion so far because I couldn't understand the use of the term "metathinking" as it was being used. >Personally, I feel that when we deal with the books "from the outside", >we're dabbling in literary criticism. When we deal with them "from the >inside", we're still indulging in literary criticism (they're still books, >after all), but with a much more narrowed focus, employing psychology, >anthropology, sociology, and other hidden talents and interests we have to >examine motive, responsibility, and plot potential. Literary criticism consists of looking at a piece of writing using a particular framework. The major framework that most of us older folks learned consists of using what's in the text and only what's in the text to establish meaning. However, new frameworks have arisen which allow us to look at a piece of writing from a variety of other frameworks and discussions of the HP series here have made use of every one of them, even if they haven't been acknowledged. If you use a feminist framework, you will look at the books in terms of the way female characters are portrayed and the way those portrayals reflect societal attitudes and norms. If you look at the books from a sociological framework, you look at the way families behave, both within the family and with other families, and you look at the behavior of groups, such as the different houses at Hogwarts. If you look at the books from a political framework, you look at how those who rule behave toward those who follow, etc. But there's more. The previous methods still use primarily what is in the text to establish meaning, although everything is seen through a different lens, so to speak. All these frameworks arose because new critics decided that it is absolutely impossible to separate meaning from social context. Other methods take even more into consideration. One adds authorial intent. The meaning comes, in part, from what the author intended the meaning to be. Another says that the author's intent means absolutely nothing because the author is driven by a belief system that he or she might not even be entirely aware of. For example, the author may have been an incredible racist, but his or her novel is quite anti-racist because quite unintentionally, the book illustrates just how horrible racism actually is. Now it was not the author's intent to illustrate that point at all. Do we say the book is not anti-racist because the author did not intend it to be? In any case, it can include a consideration of the author's thought processes. Yet another method of criticism says that meaning is created only through interaction with a reader; that is, the reader creates the meaning. It seems to me that what has been called "metathinking" here is really just a form of one of the literary criticisms and is just as valid as one of the others. Of course not everyone agrees on the validity of all of the methods, but in my way of thinking, each one adds something to the understanding of a piece of literature. One of the things I find so wonderful about this listserv is that people approach the books from such a wide variety of viewpoints. Given that I think a particular way about literature, I easily miss some of the things others bring up. I may not ultimately agree with everything that comes up, but everything certainly helps me think more about the books and makes me marvel all the more at JKR's incredible talent. >Perhaps it is, because when we're looking at HP as a book, with all of >the external influences that implies, we're studying JKR's thought processes >when she writes. On the other hand, we're still studying her mental >processes, in a way, when we're observing her characters as "people" and >trying to discern the meanings behind their actions. Are studying the >characters from the inside and studying the books from the outside BOTH >metathinking? I don't think any of that is true metathinking. Those are just different methods of literary criticism. Now if someone can point me to an article that explains metathinking as it's been used here, I'd appreciate it. I even talked this term over with some of my colleagues who teach literature (I teach writing) and they hadn't heard of it being used this way either. I have tried and tried to understand the MAGIC DISHWASHER discussion, but I always get bogged down in the "metathinking" discussion. Perhaps a new term for this method would be useful. I, for one, would like to see a description of the method without the use of "metathinking," which to be clouds the discussion. Is it simply using outside events to explain within text events? If so, I don't have a problem with it. I'm trying to find out exactly what it is and why some people are so upset with it. Are people upset simply because it strays outside the text? And in what ways does it stray outside? Should anyone care to answer me, I'd greatly appreciate an answer that explains the method rather than attempts to define the term. I'd like to see that term disappear. From kaityf at jorsm.com Fri Dec 6 21:30:26 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:30:26 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-Elves and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021206133735.01282638@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47860 Acire wrote: >Granted, house-elves are probably passes on in families, as Winky >later tells HHR that her mother and her grandmother were serving the >Crouches. However, house-elves don't need to be paid (unless you're >talking to Hermione). And, now, there's a certain house-elf who has >lost her job...Yes, Winky. The Weasleys are a great family, and I'm >sure Mrs. Weasley would make sure Winky wouldn't be overworked or >antyhing....So why couldn't the Weasleys pick up an elf that had >been dismissed? Phyllis: >It could be that having an elf is being presented >to us by JKR as a status symbol: you are rich, you have an elf. You >are not rich, you do not have an elf. Suzanne: >Or maybe the house elves discriminate against certain >wizard families and don't want to be associated with a >poor family, or one that hasn't been around for ages . Good points. I've wondered this myself, although I've wondered more about why Dobby didn't go looking for work with the Weasley's. He says that he was looking for work for 2 years before coming to Hogwarts. Were there no house-elf-free families that would be happy to find a house elf? There must be more to it than what we're seeing so far. Perhaps it's the magical, binding contract that costs money. Maybe a poor family would be delighted to have a free house elf, but there is a regulatory commission or some such thing. (Much like the regulations for animagi.) In order to have a house elf, the wizarding family must pay for the very powerful binding contract. Once the contract is in place, the elf and its family are bound to the wizarding family. The wealthy families that could afford the elves would not want a dismissed elf and the poorer families that would take a dismissed elf can't afford the contract fee. Maybe too only families that already have house elves are entitled to new ones. Acire: >Also, how many house-elves would a family have? Winky was the only >elf to serve the Crouches; When Harry indirectly frees Dobby, Lucius >says "You've lost me my servant". Not '*one* of my servants', >but '*servant*'. Would other families have reason to have more house- >elves? I've wondered if each person in a family gets a house elf. So Lucius lost *his* elf. Does Narcissa have one too? Draco? If one family has one house elf that is passed down in the family and the family has several children, who gets the elf? Does the elf go with the oldest? When? Do the children do without an elf until both parents die? (Which would be quite a while given that witches and wizards live a long time.) >Lastly, how do...um...we get baby house-elves? Would it be anything >like slave trade, where plantation owners picked the slaves with the >best qualities and "mated" them? Because while Winky mentions her >mother and grandmother, she doesn't mention any males. Perhaps she >doesn't know her biological father? Perhaps her mother didn't even >know him that well? If that's true, I'm going to start thinking of >joining S.P.E.W. That was something I wondered too, although I concluded that the situation was probably closer to that of Victorian/Edwardian England. Servants had to get permission of their employers to marry, and quite often the couple did not originally work in the same house. I'm not familiar enough with the system to know what happened once the marriage took place. However it worked, it seems that in the wizarding world, many details would have to be worked out. Financial agreements, perhaps. And maybe this was another reason only wealthy families had elves. It still doesn't answer the question of how families got elves to begin with or how many they have, etc. Suzanne: >Is the Malfoy family the exception in treating their house >elf badly? According to Dobby in CoS, all the house elves were treated like vermin during Voldemort's time, but he is still treated like vermin. I would say that it's possible there are some other families out there -- like the Crabbs and Goyles -- who also still treat their house elves badly. But in general, they are better off now that Voldemort is gone. Suzanne: >I hope to find out why they are bound to *their* families >the way they are and why Dobby seems to be the only one who >rebels against his "master". Dobby seems to be a very special HE. However, I can't help but wonder if part of his behavior is triggered by the way he is treated by Lucius. He knows that the other elves are no longer treated so badly and this is a direct result of Voldemort's disappearance, for which Harry gets the credit. Dobby rebels against Lucius, not simply to rebel, but in order to help Harry, the "savior" of most elves. Suzanne: >Was Winky, for example, treated well before the happenings >in GoF? I would think so. We have no indication that Crouch was cruel to his elves. He seems to have had a good relationship with Winky since she was able to talk him into letting Barty Jr. go out to the Quidditch match. I can't imagine Lucius agreeing to anything Dobby suggested. I can't even imagine him having any kind of conversation with Dobby at all. Suzanne: >If I were Dumbledore, I'd contact the house elves for the fight >against Lord Voldemort. >They certainly seem to have very strong powers. When I first read GoF -- and thought about how they'd make a movie of it -- I kept thinking that the whole house-elf subplot was there to tell us about the attitudes of the wizarding world -- and that it could all be cut out quite nicely from a movie. However, as I thought about it, I decided that Hermione is setting the wheels in motion for exactly what you suggest. I think the house elves are definitely going to rebel. We know rebellions have occurred, if not with house elves. Goblin rebellions are mentioned over and over throughout the books (which makes me wonder what's going to happen with the goblins in the final showdown). I suspect that the HE at Hogwarts will be the first to gain their freedom (since Dumbledore is already willing to grant it) and that they will be instrumental is enlisting the aid of the rest of the house elves. JKR has Hermione working hard with the elves for some reason and I no longer think it is just to show us how oppressed the elves are or how terrible the attitudes towards them are. Carol From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 21:34:14 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:34:14 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47861 Carol wrote: >As far as I understand the use of "meta" this is absolutely correct. >Metalanguage is language about language and meta-analysis is an analysis of >analyses. Metathinking is the thinking about thinking. Me: This is pretty accurate. The word "meta" actually means "after": it's of Greek origin, and was initially used in the term "metaphysics", which meant, literally, "after physics": this branch of philosophy was developed as a response to the physical sciences, and dealt with what we could definitely know about the more non-physical aspects of the world (emotions, spirituality, good, evil etc). Metathinking is a development of this, an attempt to examine the "science" of thinking. It is, in actuality, the purest (and most obscure) area of philosophy. Bel wrote: > >This makes me wonder, in a way, if metathinking is exactly the term we >want >here. Me: It's not really. Bel again: >I've stayed away from this discussion so far because I couldn't understand >the use of the term "metathinking" as it was being used. Me: Me too. I've had a look at the Magic Dishwasher, and while I don't agree with it, I have no real problem with it. However, all this discussion about meta-thinking has sort of distorted what's been said. Meta-thinking as it has been described by some on the list is looking at the books, but allowing events *outside* the books to be used as influences. This *is* a valid form of literary criticism and interpretation. But it's *not* necessarilly meta-thinking. Carol wrote: Other methods take even more into consideration. One adds >authorial intent. The meaning comes, in part, from what the author intended >the meaning to be. Another says that the author's intent means absolutely >nothing because the author is driven by a belief system that he or she >might not even be entirely aware of. For example, the author may have been >an incredible racist, but his or her novel is quite anti-racist because >quite unintentionally, the book illustrates just how horrible racism >actually is. Now it was not the author's intent to illustrate that point at >all. Do we say the book is not anti-racist because the author did not >intend it to be? In any case, it can include a consideration of the >author's thought processes. Me: This is a good point. There has been some discussion (especially around the guerrilla war, IRA debate) that this is unlikely to have been JKR's intent. There is a strong movement in literary and cultural criticism (in sociological discourse referred to as *semiology*) which was initially developed by a gentleman called Roland Barthes. Barthes postulated that, in the post-modern era, *the author is dead*. What he meant by this was that that the author's intent is pretty much irrelevant once the book is published or the movie released. We all place our own interpretation on the story, and are usually happy enough with that. Most people don't agonise over what the author really meant by a line of text or an action by a character, they just understand it by using their own experiences and their own belief systems, and often project whatever their motivations would be onto the characters in the story. Because the world is now such a small place, and books and movies often receive world-wide release, cultural differences are now a major aspect of this concept. An example of this was the popularity of the Rambo movies in Japan. While American audiences saw Rambo as a patriotic tale of America reclaiming her veterans and finally winning the Vietnam War (albeit a little late) Japanese audiences viewed it as a brother saving his siblings from imprisonment - they saw kinship obligations where the Americans saw racial and political ties. Authors intent was completely irrelevant in this context. What was important was what the viewers of the movie experienced and understood. The canon can be interpreted in any way a reader chooses to interpret it, and each way is valid. Magic Dishwasher is an interesting theory, and uses a perfectly acceptable form of interpretation, which to me resembles an allegorical reading (although I understand that it isn't *quite*). My own interpretations tend to be based more around the events and motivations that can be seen *in canon*. JKR may well have been influenced by what we in Ireland refer to as "the troubles", but then, JKR does not exist in the HP universe. Therefore, I'm not really interested in her intents in my interpretations of the text . On another level, I'm interested in JKR's influences, but that's more in my interest in what went into the crafting of what I consider to be these great works of art and story-telling. But that's a seperate issue. Shane. Shane Dunphy Childcare Course Coordinator, MIFET >From: Carol Bainbridge Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com To: >HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking >Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:23:00 -0600 > >bel wrote: > > >According to most of the articles I glanced at (plugging "metathinking" >into >Google search), metathinking is simply "the study of thinking". >Thinking >about thinking, in other words. "Meta-" is basically used to >describe the >thought process of pulling back another level from a study of >something to >study the study itself. > > > >Personally, I feel that when >we deal with the books "from the outside", >we're dabbling in literary >criticism. When we deal with them "from the >inside", we're still indulging >in literary criticism (they're still books, >after all), but with a much >more narrowed focus, employing psychology, >anthropology, sociology, and >other hidden talents and interests we have to >examine motive, >responsibility, and plot potential. > >Literary criticism consists of looking at a piece of writing using a >particular framework. The major framework that most of us older folks >learned consists of using what's in the text and only what's in the text to >establish meaning. However, new frameworks have arisen which allow us to >look at a piece of writing from a variety of other frameworks and >discussions of the HP series here have made use of every one of them, even >if they haven't been acknowledged. If you use a feminist framework, you >will look at the books in terms of the way female characters are portrayed >and the way those portrayals reflect societal attitudes and norms. If you >look at the books from a sociological framework, you look at the way >families behave, both within the family and with other families, and you >look at the behavior of groups, such as the different houses at Hogwarts. >If you look at the books from a political framework, you look at how those >who rule behave toward those who follow, etc. > >But there's more. The previous methods still use primarily what is in the >text to establish meaning, although everything is seen through a different >lens, so to speak. All these frameworks arose because new critics decided >that it is absolutely impossible to separate meaning from social context. >Yet another method of criticism says that meaning is created only through >interaction with a reader; that is, the reader creates the meaning. > >It seems to me that what has been called "metathinking" here is really just >a form of one of the literary criticisms and is just as valid as one of the >others. Of course not everyone agrees on the validity of all of the >methods, but in my way of thinking, each one adds something to the >understanding of a piece of literature. One of the things I find so >wonderful about this listserv is that people approach the books from such a >wide variety of viewpoints. Given that I think a particular way about >literature, I easily miss some of the things others bring up. I may not >ultimately agree with everything that comes up, but everything certainly >helps me think more about the books and makes me marvel all the more at >JKR's incredible talent. > > >Perhaps it is, because when we're looking at HP as a book, with all of > >the external influences that implies, we're studying JKR's thought >processes >when she writes. On the other hand, we're still studying her >mental >processes, in a way, when we're observing her characters as >"people" and >trying to discern the meanings behind their actions. Are >studying the >characters from the inside and studying the books from the >outside BOTH >metathinking? > >I don't think any of that is true metathinking. Those are just different >methods of literary criticism. Now if someone can point me to an article >that explains metathinking as it's been used here, I'd appreciate it. I >even talked this term over with some of my colleagues who teach literature >(I teach writing) and they hadn't heard of it being used this way either. > >I have tried and tried to understand the MAGIC DISHWASHER discussion, but I >always get bogged down in the "metathinking" discussion. Perhaps a new term >for this method would be useful. I, for one, would like to see a >description of the method without the use of "metathinking," which to be >clouds the discussion. Is it simply using outside events to explain within >text events? If so, I don't have a problem with it. I'm trying to find out >exactly what it is and why some people are so upset with it. Are people >upset simply because it strays outside the text? And in what ways does it >stray outside? > >Should anyone care to answer me, I'd greatly appreciate an answer that >explains the method rather than attempts to define the term. I'd like to >see that term disappear. > > _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Dec 6 21:52:36 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:52:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47862 Eilan noted: > > He did indeed say something like that (only have the German > translation of the book). I guess Madam Pomfrey is known around the > students for not asking questions if they turn up 'damaged' after a > spell they shouldn't even have tried went wrong. Although it really > would surprise me if something like turning halfway in a cat would > happen every day. I think it's important the Madam Pomfrey have a "no questions asked" kind of policy. We have to assume that the kids at Hogwart's are going to be experimenting with potions and charms, and even hexes upon occasion. If Nurse asked too many questions of the students, they would then avoid hospital and try to fix themselves or each other, which could be disastrous. Remember Eloise Midgen who cursed off her own nose? I think it's better for the students to know that they can trust Madam Pomfrey and get fixed up again quickly. I'm pretty sure that Hermione learned a good lesson from that experience and will be much more careful in the future. Suzanne From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 21:54:11 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:54:11 -0000 Subject: Metathinking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47863 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "shane dunphy" wrote: > Bel wrote: > > >This makes me wonder, in a way, if metathinking is exactly the term we > >want >here. > > Me: > It's not really. The term 'metaliterature' might be appropriate, only... 'metaliterating' sounds ... well ... goofy. (metaliteraturing? metalitting?) So I don't have a problem with people using 'metathinking'. I know what *I* mean by it, and the fact that others use different shades of meaning for the word doesn't bother me, because you get that sort of confusion due to differing nuances of meaning with lots of terms. However, it might be good to come up with a term that we can have an on-list definition for, that way we can reference it in discussion. CK From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Dec 6 21:54:48 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:54:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.) In-Reply-To: <140.45d870f.2b222380@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47864 I'm starting to think that MAGIC DISHWASHER needs its own list. Suzanne From sgarfio at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 22:01:03 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:01:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-Elves and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021206133735.01282638@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <20021206220103.87104.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47865 Carol wrote: > I've wondered more about > why Dobby didn't go looking for work with the Weasley's. He says that he > was looking for work for 2 years before coming to Hogwarts. Were there no > house-elf-free families that would be happy to find a house elf? Yes, but Dobby was wanting *paying* for his services. Although he seems to be willing to work for next to nothing, so the Weasleys could possibly afford him, particularly if he freed up enough of Molly's time that she could make some extra income. I wonder if perhaps nobody would pay Dobby (even a pittance) because it is well known that House Elves work for free, and nobody's willing to pay for a service that should be free. Of course, I'd hire him in a heartbeat ;-). Carol continued: > I've wondered if each person in a family gets a house elf. So Lucius lost > *his* elf. Does Narcissa have one too? Draco? If one family has one > house elf that is passed down in the family and the family has several > children, who gets the elf? Does the elf go with the oldest? When? Do > the children do without an elf until both parents die? (Which would be > quite a while given that witches and wizards live a long time.) Indeed. I guess if both bride and groom each have a House Elf, then the family starts out with 2. Maybe there's some form of dowry, at least among wealthy families, and a House Elf could be part of it? Many of the WW's customs are rather old-fashioned. Later in her post, Carol said: > I suspect that the HE at > Hogwarts will be the first to gain their freedom (since Dumbledore is > already willing to grant it) and that they will be instrumental is > enlisting the aid of the rest of the house elves. JKR has Hermione working > hard with the elves for some reason and I no longer think it is just to > show us how oppressed the elves are or how terrible the attitudes towards > them are. And I think that most wizards who have House Elves take them so for granted that they would never consider them a threat. A surreptitiously freed (or rebellious, like Dobby) House Elf would make an outstanding spy. Dobby and Winky clearly knew a *lot* about what their masters were up to in the privacy of their own homes, presumably because their masters never cared (or indeed noticed) that they were around while certain conversations or activities were taking place. They are seen as objects, and therefore not seen at all. All Dumbledore needs to do is convince a few of the Death Eaters' House Elves to take Dobby's philosophy. Or, possibly, if House Elves can be given away, he could plant a few of the Hogwarts Elves. We really do need more information on how one obtains a House Elf. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 22:55:24 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Megalynn S.) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:55:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-Elves and the Weasleys/ Molly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47866 Sherry wrote: Yes, but Dobby was wanting *paying* for his services. Although he seems to be willing to work for next to nothing, so the Weasleys could possibly afford him, particularly if he freed up enough of Molly's time that she could make some extra income. Ok, I hate to bug you guys with this, but WHAT does Molly do with her time? All of her kids are working or at school. This was discussed in Weasley economics which sadly I missed the end of. But really, is there a reason why we are not told what the woman does with her time, or am I just not assuming something you guys are. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From smiller_92407 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 23:01:35 2002 From: smiller_92407 at yahoo.com (Susan Miller) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:01:35 -0000 Subject: House-Elves and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47867 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ats_fhc3" wrote: > Okay, the canon for who has a house elf is as follows: > > "Well whoever owns him [Dobby] will be an old wizarding family, and > they'll be rich," said Fred. Well, back in the old "Peculiar Institution" days of our southern states, a similar situation existed - servants (slaves) were to serve a family until death at no pay. And yet, only the rich had slaves. This was due to two reasons - a slave was valuable property and the initial cost of purchase was far beyond the means of normal folk. Secondly, the upkeep of a slave cost money, too. So, assuming that house elves don't multiply rapidly, and the number of available ones for acquisition remains low, prices for a new house- elf could stay quite high, putting such an acquisition only within the means of the very rich or by inheritance. (I have a theory that the Malfoys are not as wealthy as they pretend to be, but as there is no canon support for that, it belongs on another list. Now, where was I? Oh, yes) > So why couldn't the Weasleys pick up an elf that had > been dismissed? > Similarly, we don't know what is required for upkeep of an elf. OK, not much for clothes (have you priced tea-towels lately? ), but we do not know what else may be required in the way of ongoing expense. It could be like owning a horse in our world - as nice as it is to have one, not everyone wants to take on the responsibility. ~ Constance Vigilance ~ From oppen at mycns.net Fri Dec 6 23:04:41 2002 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:04:41 -0600 Subject: The Trio and Polyjuice Potion Message-ID: <018301c29d7b$ddd42000$65560043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 47868 One thing I've wondered about the whole Polyjuice Potion thing is why Harry or Ron or especially rule-abiding Hermione didn't think of owling to Diagon Alley for the supplies they needed. If Professor Snape had caught Hermione swiping supplies from _his personal stores,_ she'd have been in a ton of trouble---I don't think Professor D'dore would _expel_ her, particularly since she's normally so well-behaved, but at the least, she'd have had a great deal of explaining to do---and I _don't_ think that a twelve-year-old girl could get out of that without implicating Ron and Harry, who were _already_ in deep kimchee over the Flying Ford Anglia. Twelve-year-old girls are not known, at least by me, for their extreme fortitude under serious adult cross-examination. Just because some supplies are kept under lock and key at Hogwarts doesn't mean that they aren't perfectly legal for students to have ("controlled substances" as somebody above suggested)---it might well be because the stuff is expensive and they don't want students just swiping it or being careless with it. If Polyjuice Potion depends on something that's expensive---well, Harry _has_ money at Gringott's, and AFWK nobody in particular to oversee how he spends it; he contemplates buying a fancy new broom at the beginning of CoS, but decides against it on his own. He doesn't think "well, I'd love to buy it, but my guardians would pitch a fit/refuse to allow it." The Wizard World seems to have a very nineteenth-century attitude toward a lot of things that would have us cautious (I would say over-cautious) moderns throwing fits...eleven-year-olds with magic wands and flying brooms, the whole Quidditch game (if I tried to introduce anything one-tenth as dangerous here, I'd be sued raggedy) and a very laissez-faire attitude toward a lot of dangerous stuff, unless it's an unmistakably Dark artifact with no "good" uses. (And, even then, they're openly on sale in Knockturn Alley, a place I'd personally love to explore.) I don't think that mere possession of potion components, even by underage Hogwarts students, is illegal _eo nomine._ You know...if I were their Potions professor, and had found out about the Polyjuice Incident after the fact, I'd take lots of points off Gryffindor for stealing the ingredients, as well as a detention apiece featuring much ripping of strips off them for taking such a stupid chance...but, at the same time, I'd be very proud of Hermione for managing such an advanced potion. And when I went to a Potions Conference, I'd brag her up a little. "You think _your_ students are good? One of _my_ students, at only twelve years old and her second year, successfully brewed Polyjuice Potion! Beat that! NYAAAH!" From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 23:10:08 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:10:08 -0000 Subject: Wizard Orphanages (WAS Hagrid's Personality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47869 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "shane dunphy" wrote: > Sherry again: > >Certainly the VoldeWars would have necessitated some kind of orphan-care > >arrangement if there had been none before, although that would have been > >after Hagrid's time. But something else occurred to me in reading this. Why > >would Tom Riddle have been sent back to the *Muggle* orphanage if Hogwarts > >were closed? > > Me: > This occurred to me too, and I've re-read the relevant passages in CoS and > GoF which deal with Tom Riddle's and Hagrid's situations and in GoF we also > hear of the Neville situation, another example which, in the MW, would be > dealt with by social workers if there was no family to step in. In none of > these cases is there any mention of a wizarding social services or of any > formalised response to child-care or child protection needs. Anne: This discussion has caused me to wonder about a few things for the first time: If TMRiddle's mother was a witch giving birth, then *how* in the world did he end up in a muggle orphanage? My most logical guess is that his mother, who was from Little Hangleton, simply returned there after her husband abandoned her (read, "kicked her out"). Perhaps she was trying to have the baby on her own, as sometimes happens, when things began to go very wrong, and she just stumbled out to the muggle house next door for help. This assumes she was the only magical person in the village. Then, of course, baby Tom ended up in a muggle orphanage. But now what happens? Somewhere (at Hogwarts?), Tom's name appears in the book which records magical childrens' births (canon insofar as it came from a chat w/JKR). Doesn't someone look at these until the child turns 11? Wouldn't someone know that a wizard had been born? Then, 11 years later, a Hogwarts letter needs to be sent. We have discussed before on this list the idea of how the WW breaks it to muggle parents that they have a magical child, but now some wizard has to convince the head of an orphanage? Seems to me it would have been much simpler if a witch came to claim a day-old Tom Marvolo Riddle from the muggles; she would have needed only a mild memory charm and everything would have been tidied up as far as the muggles were concerned. Of course, this may have taken away TMR's reason to frame Hagrid, unless he was living with a very nasty magical family indeed... > > (2) I have, however, noticed that, despite the very obvious presence in the > canon of abuse issues, the *attitude* towards it seems to be very different > to ours. The treatment of Harry by the Death-Eaters, and subsequently by > Dumbldore et al, at the end of GoF is a classic example: a child, after > witnessing the brutal murder of a friend, is tortured and almost killed for > the gratification of a group of adults (again, I know that there were larger > reasons in terms of the magical plot, but that aside, it still constitutes > child abuse). Harry, after his escape has a few nice chats with Dumbledore, > is given the wizard equivalent of a sleeping pill, has a bit of a cuddle > with Mrs Weasley and then is sent on his way back to a summer of (at best) > neglect with the Dursleys! Is any counselling sought out for him? No! > This strikes me as incredibly cold and callous. I know that there is the > whole magic protection thing going on at Dursleys, but couldn't Dumbledore > have sent a message stating that Harry had been unavoidably detained at > Hogwarts, and arrange some form of more in-depth therapy? Do wizards have a > different undertanding of the effects of trauma? I suppose Harry must have been sent right to the Dursleys because the need for his protection is all the more urgent. Ron did tell Harry that Mrs. Weasley had a discussion about this with Dumbledore, so perhaps we will find out early in book 5 that something more has been done for Harry. I certainly hope so, but JKR does seem to skip over some stuff that I, for one, would certainly like to read about! Anne From sgarfio at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 23:48:18 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:48:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Trio and Polyjuice Potion In-Reply-To: <018301c29d7b$ddd42000$65560043@hppav> Message-ID: <20021206234818.8823.qmail@web21411.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47870 Eric Oppen wrote: > If Professor Snape had caught Hermione > swiping supplies from _his personal stores,_ she'd have been in a ton of > trouble---I don't think Professor D'dore would _expel_ her, particularly > since she's normally so well-behaved, but at the least, she'd have had a > great deal of explaining to do---and I _don't_ think that a twelve-year-old > girl could get out of that without implicating Ron and Harry, who were > _already_ in deep kimchee over the Flying Ford Anglia. Twelve-year-old > girls are not known, at least by me, for their extreme fortitude under > serious adult cross-examination. Oh, I don't know, she did pretty well after the troll incident in PS/SS... > If Polyjuice Potion depends on something that's > expensive---well, Harry _has_ money at Gringott's, and AFWK nobody in > particular to oversee how he spends it; he contemplates buying a fancy new > broom at the beginning of CoS, but decides against it on his own. He > doesn't think "well, I'd love to buy it, but my guardians would pitch a > fit/refuse to allow it." You know, I've always been very impressed with how Harry handles his money. After a *very* limited "kid in a candy store" episode on the train in PS/SS, he's been pretty responsible. How does an 11-year-old (or 12, 13, or 14-year old) boy who's never had anything cool, who's never even had an allowance, who suddenly finds himself dripping in Galleons, learn to manage money, in a currency he'd never heard of before? Is this just another example of how incredibly well-adjusted he's turned out in spite of his abusive upbringing? > You know...if I were their Potions professor, and had found out about the > Polyjuice Incident after the fact, I'd take lots of points off Gryffindor > for stealing the ingredients, as well as a detention apiece featuring much > ripping of strips off them for taking such a stupid chance...but, at the > same time, I'd be very proud of Hermione for managing such an advanced > potion. And when I went to a Potions Conference, I'd brag her up a little. > "You think _your_ students are good? One of _my_ students, at only twelve > years old and her second year, successfully brewed Polyjuice Potion! Beat > that! NYAAAH!" You know, somebody brought up the question earlier of Polyjuice Potion and personality before, and a thought occurred to me later. Polyjuice Potion is indeed a very complicated potion. What if, *properly* brewed by an *experienced* wizard, it does confer the target person's personality on the drinker? Maybe Hermione got it just good enough, but she needed to stir it counterclockwise or sit on the west side of the cauldron or something, so they got only the physical effect. Crouch got it "just right," so he got Moody's personality as well. Just a thought. Off topic, I *totally* fail to see *why* they did the thing with the voices in this scene in TMTMNBN. It wasn't in the book, it makes sense that they would take on the target's vocal chords along with the rest of their physical appearacne, and it just added a technical complication and robbed those two actors (whoever they are) of having a real scene in a very successful film. Do they think we're so thick we can't figure out who's who? Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 00:22:55 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 00:22:55 -0000 Subject: Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: <20021206175807.76461.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sarmi wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fer Mendoza" wrote: > Ron actually explained ... ... ... "Good thing Madam Pomfrey doesn't ask questions" or something like that. ... ... ... > > > Brian wrote: > > While we don't know for sure what, if anything was said to Dumbledore about Hermione's condition, I refuse to believe that Pomphrey is so incompetant as to not correctly diagnose the cause of the ailment! > Sarmi: > I agree partly here. I do believe that Madam Pomphrey knew what caused Hermione's transformation. ... ... ... I'm pretty sure at one point she just stopped asking why they did it and just treated them, sometimes it's just better to not know why. A good Nurse could only ask questions of those students who seem to be repeat offenders ... ... ... > > Sarmi bboy_mn adds: Of course, all we can do is speculate, but my read of this was that in order to encourage student to come and get treatment right away, Md. Pomphrey doesn't ask too many questions. If student put off coming in until the problem has become disasterous, danagerous, or deadly; that's not a good thing. Let's not forget when Ron got bit by Norbert the dragon. In a matter of two days, it became clear that Norbert was poisonous and that the poison was spreading up Ron's arm. A young boy like that could have very easlily been too intimidated to come in for help if he thought he was going to get into trouble, and may have gone to some other student for help, and really made bad things worse. So, I think it's better for the students to feel they can come in to the infirmary whenever they need help and not have to worry about the consequence of asking for that help. I'm sure that students get into fights and curse each other all the time. Students like Neville try a simple spell in the common room, and a it backfires sending half a dozen people to the school nurse for help. I mean, one student tried to curse her acne off, and instead cursed her nose off. So, I think Md. Pomphrey gets a steady stream of students with problems like this. However, if there was a sign of blatant abuse, dangerous or malicious assault, I think she would mention it, and those students would be watched closely. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 00:29:44 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 00:29:44 -0000 Subject: House-Elves and the Weasleys/ Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megalynn S." wrote: > > Ok, I hate to bug you guys with this, but WHAT does Molly do with her > time? All of her kids are working or at school. This was discussed in > Weasley economics which sadly I missed the end of. But really, is > there a reason why we are not told what the woman does with her time, > or am I just not assuming something you guys are. > > Megalynn bboy_mn: Besides knitting sweaters, socks, and scarves for at least five kids plus Harry, and making all kinds of Holiday food to send as presents. I think Molly spends a great deal of time taking a well deserved rest. And perhaps enjoying more of Mr. Weasley's company (if you know what I mean). ;) As a side note: I'm sure she spends a great deal of time watching that infernal 'mortal peril' clock. Just a thought. bboy_mn From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 01:38:55 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:38:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Snitch (was Could Quidditch really work?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021207013855.26602.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47873 ---I think mythxhp wrote: > > The original poster on this topic said that catching the snitch early > on may not be a good thing. I disagree, when the snitch makes an > appearence, nobody knows who is going to catch it. By deciding not to > catch it, the seeker runs two risks: Firstly, that the other side may > outplay his own side, and the other side could amass more than 150 > points before the snitch puts in another appearence,...[snip] ...proves that when the snitch isn't around, the seeker has duties which tie in with the > game. When the snitch puts in an appearence, the seekers are attacked > by the other side, trying to block the opposing seeker and allow > their own one to get the snitch. The score board will be a deciding > factor on the seeker's decision to make a grab for the snitch or > allow it to scatter and attempt to block the other seeker. I would > imagine that this would be more of a factor in professional quidditch. > > James All these mentions (both in these posts and in the books) of the snitch "not being around" and "making an apperance" makes me wonder if the snitch can become invisible. I do have QTTA, but it bored me to tears. I'm one of those people that would rather watch it, I guess. I also have other questions: why doesn't Harry just simply keep his eye on the snitch once it is released, and then go after it immediately? Granted, he does have bludgers and members of the other team to contend with, plus catching the snitch "too early" would rob the spectators and the other players of a good game, but technically, what is to prevent Harry or any other seeker from just swooping down and snatching it within seconds of being released? Is there a rule against this? If so, why not just keep it in the line of vision until it is 'catchable'? And why not charm oneself to temporarily have the eyesight of a raptor in order to achieve this? And other than the fact that it would simply be unsportmanlike conduct (as well as cheating), how come Harry (or Draco!) hasn't taken the notion to just accio the snitch into his hand? Logic tells me that the snitch has been charmed to not be accessible in this manner, and also to avoid any and all contact with humans while in flight; otherwise (can you imagine? LOL) someone would be flying along on his/her broom, intent on avoiding a bludger or something, and just suddenly get black eye from face-crashing into the invisible snitch! Those of you who have read QTTA and actually remember stuff that deals with these questions, please feel free to answer. Although it is my favorite sport, reading QTTA makes me feel like Prof. Binns wrote it under a nom de plume! -kel __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From empress848 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 01:16:44 2002 From: empress848 at yahoo.com (empress848 ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:16:44 -0000 Subject: SHIP:Maybe it is love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47874 There has been much speculation about whether the impending romance between Ron and Hermione actually exists. Opponents of Ron/Hermione pairing believe that constant bickering and tension is not really a healthy basis to begin a love relationship. I will argue that this romance truly does exist, is healthy, and is an integral part to the Harry Potter series. It has been clear to many readers that Ron and Hermione have feelings (other than hatred and friendship) for each other. This was demonstrated (in GOF) at the Yule Ball and in the last chapter of GOF, when Hermione finally realized that Ron disliked Krum because of his crush on her. But I believe that POA offers an even more important glimpse at Hermione's and Ron's "Love Magic". -"Yeah, it will," said Ron fiercely. "You won't have to do all the work (freeing Buckbeak from execution) alone this time, Hermione. I'll help." -"Oh, Ron!" -Hermione flung her arms around Ron's neck and broke down completely. Ron, looking quite terrified, patted her very awkwardly on the top of the head. Finally Hermione drew away. This emotionally charged embrace between the two shows where their hearts' devotion truly lies. Ron saw how upset Hermione was and immediately offered assistance. Hermione, relieved he was no longer angry with her, demonstrated how important Ron is to her emotional health. Supporter's of Harry/Hermione believe that these two have the most important romantic potential. However, it is probable that they are mistaken. Hermione has hugged Harry on numerous occasions, without an akward reaction on Harry's part. When she embraces Ron, he is beside himself, and loses rational composure. He merely pats her on the head. Ron and Hermione have intense chemistry,even discernible at a young age. They argue, make fun of each other, act jealous of the other's choice of crush (Hermione with Lockhart and Ron with Fleur) help each other, but most importantly, stand by each other in times of need. After Hermione slaps Malfoy (and rightfully so) it is Ron who is the most affected by her actions. -"Hermione! said Ron weakly, and he tried to grab her hand as she swung it back. -"Get off, Ron!" Hermione pulled out her wand. Malfoy stepped backward. Crabbe and Goyle looked at him for instructions, thoroughly bewildered. -"Hermione!" Ron said again, sounding both stunned and impressed. And although Ron might have small hormonally-driven crushes (Fleur) he prefers the girl who is smart, sassy, independent and who will "give him hell" when he deserves it. And, I, for one will be sorely disappointed if we are deprived to see the romance between Ron and Hermione blossom in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. -BECKY From urbana at charter.net Sat Dec 7 01:43:11 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne R Urbanski) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 19:43:11 -0600 Subject: Thoughts? Beast and Disillusionment Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47875 Melpomene wrote: >So, isn't that backwards? Shouldn't it be an Illusionemnt Charm or >an >> Anti-Disillusionment Charm, meaning the placement of illusion, false >> beliefs, and enchantments, or acting against the lose or removal of >> illusion and/or false belief? >> >> This popped into my head because we were discussing the charms that >> might be placed around the Burrow to keep muggles from noticing it. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >Well it wouldn't be the only one--backward spell, that is. This is >going to come awful close to being a "one liner" but "ENERVATE" as a >spell for re-animating an unconcious person is also backwards. >Ennervat, according to Websters means "1:to lessen the vitality or >strengh of 2: to reduce the mental or moral vigor of." >Melpomene It appears to me that JKR actually should have had this spell be "INNERVATE", which, according to the American Heritage Dictionary Online (http://www.bartleby.com/61/16/I0151600.html) means: TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: in?ner?vat?ed, in?ner?vat?ing, in?ner?vates 1. To supply (an organ or a body part) with nerves. 2. To stimulate (a nerve, muscle, or body part) to action. I wondered about the *enervate* spell when I first read it. Innervate would make much more sense. Anne U (unable to keep up with this list...so I'm just poking my head in for a brief spell ... pardon the pun ;-) "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."? - Albus Dumbledore, in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" "Anyone could be the one to change your life" -- Monte Montgomery http://www.montemontgomery.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 02:25:08 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:25:08 -0000 Subject: The Snitch (was Could Quidditch really work?) In-Reply-To: <20021207013855.26602.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kelly broughton ...previous posted edited... > > All these mentions (both in these posts and in the books) of the > snitch "not being around" and "making an apperance" makes me wonder > if the snitch can become invisible. I do have QTTA, but it bored me > to tears. I'm one of those people that would rather watch it, I guess. > > I also have other questions: why doesn't Harry just simply keep his > eye on the snitch once it is released, and then go after it > immediately? > > ...edited... > > -kel bboy_mn: Unless I'm mistaken, Md. Hooche lets all the balls except the quaffle go while the players are on the ground. When she starts the game, the game isn't officially in play until all the players are in the air and someone has the quaffle (in my estimation). It's possible that the Snitch and Bludgers have been released before Harry and his team even get on the field (I only check the first three books, but they seemed consistent). So, even it he sees it when he comes on the field, with having to mount his broom and getting both teams in the air, I don't think 'keeping your eye on the snitch' is as easy as it sounds. Also, we don't know the range of movement allowable to the Snitch. I may not necessarily have to stay within the same boundaries as the players. I could be hiding in the stands with the spectators. Plus it is small, highly manuverable, and fast; you could lose sight of it very easily. It could be sitting motionless in the grass, or hiding behind a goal post or hovering 100 ft above the game. How hard is it to keep track of a golf ball, both in the air and on the ground. I don't play golf, but I think a lot of people lose site both in the air and on the ground. Now picture a golf ball that is metallic gold istead of bright white, and one that never stops moving. I don't think it's really that easy to 'keep your eye on'. Short version, I think the Snitch is already lost before the game even begins. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Dec 7 02:37:24 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C. ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:37:24 -0000 Subject: Meta-Thinking and Magic Dishwasher (TBAY references) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47877 Eileen wrote: >No one on the list engages in > as much metathinking as Captain Cindy. The Big Bang theory is > metathinking taken to the extremes. And you know how often she's > accused of humpty-dumptying the Bangs. Metathinking is a lot less > precise that speculation within canon. However, that doesn't make >it less valuable as a tool of critique. Me? I'm -- I'm -- I'm a *meta-thinker?* Wow! That is so *cool!* See, I only learned what meta-thinking was this morning. Oh, many have tried to explain it to me. But someone really sat me down today and explained it today, very slowly in words I can understand. I now know that all that time I was going around Banging, I was really meta-thinking, which is much classier! ;-) Eileen (on whether using meta-thinking on Magic Dishwasher is fair play): > Now this is where I've never been able to follow the MD-ers. It >never occured to me that criticism of a theory is limited to the >theory's viewpoints. But think how easy it would be for us all if everyone were straight- jacketed into the viewpoint of a theory they were trying to analyze. ;-) Man, I wish I had understood this meta-thinking thing for Assassin! Snape. I was trying to convince everyone that it was consistent with Dumbledore's characterization to posit that he might order the assassination of Karkaroff at Snape's hand. Lots of people opposed Assassin!Snape on meta-thinking grounds -- JKR would never have Dumbledore, Harry's father figure, do something so cruel and immoral, for instance. All I had to do was say that characterization is irrelevant and not a valid criticism of the theory, then. 'Cause characterization is meta-thinking, isn't it? For Assassin!Snape, no one can question the theory on grounds such as characterization; instead, they must start off accepting the assumptions of the theory itself, and if it leads to a conclusion they find implausible on characterization grounds, then the problem is with their own approach rather than my theory? Is that how it works? Eileen: > It makes sense to reject a theory on grounds of metathinking. In >fact, I suspect that's why we, in the end, reject and accept the >theories we do. Well, we have to meta-think, don't we? If we didn't, this list would only have about 5,000 messages. And most of them would deal with the most pedestrian canon questions, I suppose. Because the books only contain a certain number of ideas, and there are lots of gaps that are fun to theorize about. But if you can't evaluate any theory using criteria outside the theory itself, you won't come up with plausible answers for very many canon mysteries, I suppose. And you will have a hard time debating these theories in a way that is enjoyable or interesting for our present purposes, IMHO. And you might even find it next to impossible to Bang. ;-) Eileen: > So, while good discussion can be had within canon, (And PRESSURE > COOKER tried to do this, I think,) metathinking must be recognized >as crucial to any discussion of any theory, whether you care to >indulge in it or not. What I have found interesting about MD and the meta-thinking debate is that the MD debate sometimes seems centered on whether folks do or do not bow down to the MD theory itself. Either you confess that MD adds up and is a viable theory based on the principles of the theory itself, or you are not playing fair because you are meta- thinking. That seems strange to me. But then again, it is quite possible that I need another tutorial on meta-thinking. ;-) Meta-Thinking!Cindy -- who's not sure she is even making sense From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 02:40:24 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:40:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in book1???) In-Reply-To: <20021206175807.76461.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021207024024.29013.qmail@web20808.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47878 I always figured she had a don't ask policy, so that the kids came for her for treatment, rather than trying to do it themselves, and making things worse. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sat Dec 7 03:23:19 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:23:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some mistakes in book1??? References: Message-ID: <3DF169A7.38D92672@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47879 Gail Bohacek wrote: > > Maria Wrote: > > >1. How could Fluffy bite Snape's leg? Fluffy is supposed to be a dog > >that "took up the entire space between the floor and the ceiling." > >Wouldn't it be rather hard for it to bite Snape's *leg*? If I were > >that dog, I'd probably just bite his head off. > > > Can I tell you what bugs me about this whole scenario? When Snape got > > wounded, why didn't he go to the infirmary and get himself fixed up? > Instead, he limps around days after the attack. Why does he have > Filch > change the bandages instead of Madame Pomfrey? Seems really strange. > > -Gail B. > It was supposed to be a secret after all. Maybe Madame Pomfrey didn't know about Fluffy or what Dumbledore was hiding in the school and thus Snape figured she would ask too many questions? Maybe he hates being fussed over by her or something? Could be any number of reasons with Snape.. Jazmyn From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 05:03:11 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 05:03:11 -0000 Subject: This Tolkien Ring (filk - yes, it's an HP filk!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47880 This Tolkien Ring To the tune of This Diamond Ring by Gary Lewis and the Playboys Hear the original at: http://www.wtv-zone.com/ezegoinguy/Musicpage4.html Dedicated to Marina F. THE SCENE: Hogwarts Library. After reading LOTR, HARRY decides that on balance, he is much better suited to be a Rowling as opposed to a Tolkien protagonist HARRY Who'd want to star in Tolkien's Ring? They cut it off your finger, now, and that would really sting This Tolkien Ring has bad guys worse than Voldemort And this Tolkien Ring lacks for broomsticks and candy stores And though I grieve with Colin Creevey followin' Better him than Gollum...... Tolkien wrote oodles of Ring back story Would I have to sing and dance his faux mythology? In Tolkien's Ring they would let Dobby bear a sword And in Tolkien's Ring I'd go barefoot to fight Mordor And I'd get Borked with a billion orcs escapin' Think I'll stick with Snape `n' . In Tolkien's Ring being unseen make Nazgul pounce And the proper names are all words that I can't pronounce And wooden Ents I'd much resent if still, oh, They act like Whomping Willows This Tolkien Ring has just one good guy magical And this Tolkien Ring, well the end's kinda tragical Not JRR, it's JKR I'll count on Don't send me to Doom Mountain . - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 05:27:14 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 05:27:14 -0000 Subject: TBAY: An attempt at cuddles (Meta and MD included) In-Reply-To: <140.45d870f.2b222380@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47881 Before I start, I just want to apologies for writing "critic" every time when I meant "critique" in my last post. Some days you know a word looks wrong, but it passes spell-check, so it *must* be right. ::sigh:: Sorry about that. So let's start.... ------- "Why? Why, oh why, did I take on the uncertainty of meta-thinking? I mean, the word does not even exist," Melody said while kicking a rock out of her way with more venom than normal. Eloise watched the rock skip across the ground and said, "Precisely. MDDT has introduced a very technical-sounding word that simply does not exist in the dictionary and is not normally used outside a very limited (and different) field. It is not helpful. I do wonder what newbies who stumble on these conversations think." "They think precisely what I thought," Melody said scooping up another rock and throwing it in the field. "Great, these people are so smart that they have created their own words. What have I gotten myself into?" Eloise glanced over at Melody. "Do I hear a hint of regret, Melody?" Melody stopped walking and turned her head back over at Eloise. "Definitely *not*. This is all too much fun to regret. It is just...eh...tedious at times. That is all. I mean, ya'll demand so much from the MDDT. And hey, I find that name funny. My real life initials are MDT. Just an amusing fact." "Thanks for that. My life is enriched," Eloise said sarcastically but with a smile. "So, what were we talking about?" Melody asked picking up another rock and continued walking. ---"Wait," the TBAY reader called from beyond the screen. "What is going on? You haven't set the scene. Why are there so many rocks?" ---Typer Melody paused. "Who needs a setting? The words are the important part." ---"I am not reading anymore unless you place TBAY Eloise and TBAY you in a setting," the TBAY reader threatened. "My imagination *demands* a setting." ---Typer Melody shifted her hands over the keyboard and muttered, "Oh all right. You want a setting? Fine. Here." Walking down a path quite familiar to all in the bay, Eloise and Melody were quite in conversation. ---"There the scene is set," Typer Melody quipped back. ---"How terribly boring," the TBAY reader remarked. ---"Give me time. Patience," Typer Melody said. "Can I return to the walk?" ---"Will there be pirates, or big dangerous trees, or accosting women?" the TBAY reader asked with much hope. ---Typer Melody pierced her eyes through the computer screen to the TBAY reader's eyes and growled. "No. Not this time. Now will you please let me continue my story. I promise it will be about more than just a walk." ---"It better be," the TBAY reader threatened again. "Ok. Continue." ---"Thank you," Typer Melody said while tipping her head. "Now, where was I? Oh, yes..." "Meta-thinking," Eloise stated. "We were talking about the MDDT using the word 'meta-thinking' as a red flag. Now I just learned what a yellow flag is, and it can be accepted in my point of view, but I think it is unfair that you three *do* use it as a red flag. And we do see it as mutable, because we never know what the definition of meta-thinking is going to be. Except that it is bound to include whatever problem we have just articulated." "Fair enough," Melody said. "It can be rather frustrating. Frankly, I am not completely sure why we don't accept the arguments other than the fact they can be rather broad and assuming. Seems meta-thinking is based on much assumption, but that isn't bad really. I am sorry if we do seem to mutate the definition of 'meta-thinking' for our own purpose. I think we *try* not to, and please know we do not mean to over use the flag. Maybe the definition should be whatever is not considered canon. But then JKR interviews are in that grey area. Why is it that this site *can't* hammer down this definition? Is it that every time we do, we over at MD headquarters add a new patch to it?" "Yes," Eloise said nodding. "That is the impression you seem to have on all of the listees." "I'm sorry," Melody said gravely. "Should we change the name of it as some have suggested? But that brings on the Shakespeare quotes. Just because the name of something changes, does not mean it no longer exists." A little light came on in Melody's head and she just had to share her idea. "Hey. Maybe we should have a nonpartisan decision maker to give the *official* HPfGU definition to meta-thinking. And once this person has the definition, they are then the keeper of the definition and one must appeal to them for additions and patches to the said definition. How does that sound? Then MDDT must consult the 'official' definition before using it." "But who would take on such an important position?" Eloise asked deep in thought kicking the dirt onthe road. "Someone we all respect and can explain the word to all levels of listees. And this definition should be also included in that 'big humongous file' set out to newbies. Then all is on the same page." Melody said quite proud of herself. "Could such an event happen?" Eloise smirked. "Anything can happen here." "Ok then," Melody breathed and peered out into the field. Eloise picked up a rock herself this time and asked, "Did you hear what Suzanne said?" "No," Melody said still scanning the field. "She thought that MAGIC DISHWASHER needs its own list," Eloise said. Melody frowned. "You mean banish us? As if we were off topic or a theory-that-must-not-be-named? I mean, I am sorry if MD gets dragged into the sandbox so much on the site's playground, but we do not mean to be so bad that we are no longer wanted. I mean we do label the post that are MD related with a big 'MD', so why not just avoid those if you don't like reading them." "I thought that is what you would say," Eloise commented. "You know Pippin said something today I think might help with this dissention against MD," Melody said looking back at Eloise. "She said that... >The MDDT has decided to throw a curtain over theme and structure and >told us not to pay attention to the little man behind it. Which >decision I respect. They've simply served notice that *they're* not >willing to discuss or defend MD on those grounds. That doesn't, or >shouldn't, mean that the theory isn't open to criticism on a thematic >or structural level. But we'll be talking to ourselves. That is precisely what Pip, Grey, and I feel. By just looking at the canon for the theory support, we *are* ignoring 'the little man behind the curtain.' And we do want to ignore those that try to point us to this fact. You know Pippin is quite smart," Melody smiled, "and she also hit the nail with the last comment. The problem is not in *y'all's* arguments in meta-thinking. They are actually quite well done. MDDT just does not want to discuss or defend MD on those grounds. And when we don't, y'all want to know why. Then we say 'it is meta-thinking,' and you say 'what the hell is that? Why should that matter?' and then we explain and then both sides hit that ball back and forth and it all leads us here," ended Melody a bit dizzy and out of breath. "So can I pose a problem with MDDT and the theory?" Eloise asked wanting to move on past all this. "Oh, course you can Eloise. I will do my best to answer," Melody said like a good MDDT member. "But can we sit down a second?" The two women stopped and stepped off the road to made themselves comfortable in the field. Eloise leaned up against an oak tree, but Melody decided to not risk it and sat indian-style in the field barely under the shade of the tree so she can have a quick escape. "Ok then," Eloise smirked at having to raise her voice a bit to reach Melody. "I have problems with the (no doubt unintentional) implication that the MDers' view is more canonical than my point of view." "Ooo, that wasn't our intention *at all* Eloise. You are correct on that bit. We never meant to give the impression we were "superior" to others. We are *not*. We never mean to attack the listee when we used that argument. I mean we don't attack the person just their critique. We are just saying that we use just canon in *this* theory. Whether or not others do so with their theories, is up to them. But when one uses 'just canon', their theory does tend to be more canonical by default. We never meant to say this is the only way to travel. Frankly your point of view must be very canonical if you are still able to swim with the big boys on this site," smiled Melody picking at the grass. "Well then my next problem lies in the fact 'red flags' are being waved in my face which change every other day causing me to not being able to hold a discussion where we all do not use words and terms to mean the same thing," Eloise explained. Melody looked down at her hands and said, "Well, isn't that why we are having all these conversations? To try and bring this definition to a head. That is what I am trying to do, because I *hate* the idea that the MDDT is thought of as not playing fair. I *know* that is not true. We are not so *bent* on being right that we are changing the rules, as y'all seem to be implying. You know that is what I have a problem with. Y'all seem to believe we at the MDDT will stop at *nothing* to twist the world to fit our view of it. And we would even go as far as committing "the unforgivable deed" of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Honestly, do you think our lives so revolve around this theory being true, that we would even do such a horrible deed? *That* is what I feel is being implied. I mean what is so wrong about us saying that certain arguments do not contradict MD? It is as much our opinion as it is yours to pose it in the first place." After a bit of a pause, Eloise asked, "So what is meta-thinking then?" Melody looked up and out at the field. A small fluff of white caught her eye, and she stood up to get a better look. Seeing the fluff jump up, Melody's eyes widened. "What do you see?" Eloise asked peering out in the direction Melody was. "Just a minute..." Melody said watching the fluffy bounce closer and closer to her. Melody twitched her mouth wondering if she should fear this too, being that the bay are can be rather deceptive, but by the time the thought crossed her mind, the fluffy jumped through the tall grass and up into her arms. "It's a bunny," Eloise exclaimed. "Yeah," Melody smiled cuddling the furball as it licked her face. "Ah, its ear is torn. Poor little bunny has gone through the wringer." "Can I hold it?" Eloise asked. "Sure. Here," Melody said while trying to gingerly place the bunny in Eloise's arms. The bunny shifted a bit but moved over to Eloise's arms and twitched it's nose at her. Eloise pet the bunny and offered her hand for it to lick her, but... "Owwww!" cried Eloise and released her arms letting the bunny fall. "That thing bit me!" The bunny hit the ground flat on its back, flipped over, and jumped back in Melody's arms. Melody, still astonished at what happened, just stood there and blustered, "Eloise, I'm so sorry. Bad bunny. I bet it thought you had sugar on your hands or something. Bad, bad bunny." Eloise sucked on her bleeding finger. "Good thing I had my rabies shot," Eloise commented. "What sort of bunny bites?" Melody held out the bunny, thus making it kick quite a bit, and peered at the thing. "You know this bunny is like meta-thinking. It is kind and friendly to me, but somehow when it jumps over to you, it gets scared and bits. All I can do is apologies for it. I never intended it to bit you. Maybe this little bunny can help us figure out what our problems with meta-thinking is in the first place?" "How so?" asked Eloise still nursing her wound. "Oh, you will see," Melody said with a sly smile. Eloise raised her head at the girl and sighed, "Well that is all well and good, but I need to get home and get this bandaged." "Ok," Melody said still cradling the bunny, "Think I'll take her home and show Pip and Grey. Goodbye Eloise. Till next time." "Bye Melody," Eloise called as she returned to the road. "Nice chatting with you." Melody rose up with bunny and went down the road to the safe house. The bunny was cuddled on its back deep in her arms with its big feet flapping along to the rhythm on Melody's steps. Running up to the back door to the breakfast nook, Melody saw Pip and Sneaky the house elf in the main living room addressing Christmas cards for all the citizens of the bay. "Pip! Pip! Looky, looky. Can I keep it?" Melody called practically bouncing into the house and into the living room. Pip and Sneaky looked at each other wondering what Melody dragged in this time. Pip turned to see the girl grass-stained and clutching a big fluffy of fur. "You know how Grey is with little animals," Pip said with a furrowed brow. "But she is so cute. And she was in the field, covered in mud, and her ear is torn, and she was all alone," Melody urged pulling the bunny close to her heart. "Covered in mud?" Sneaky squeaked with a raised eyebrow [do house elfs have eye brows?] seeing the pristine white bunny. Melody frowned at the house elf. "Ok, I exaggerated *that* part, but the rest is true. Can we keep it Pip?" Melody asked turning her eyes pleading to Pip. "Here hold her." Pip outstretched her arms eager to hold the fluff, but Melody paused in mid-exchange. "Wait, she bit Eloise." "Why?" Pip asked surprised. "Don't know," Melody said plainly. "We were discussing meta-thinking and the bunny came up and licked me and then bit her. I then compared it to the problems others have with our use of meta-thinking." "How can a bunny be like meta-thinking because it bits?" Pip asked crossing back her arms. Melody thought a moment at what she meant before. "Well, this bunny looks gentle and kind. It even hopped up into my arms. But when I let it hop over to Eloise's arms, it bit her. So the parallel is that meta-thinking is completely harmless. It defines well in my arms, but when I try to pass it over to another's, it seems they are bit and thus confused. And also, using meta-thinking is like pulling a white rabbit out of a hat. There is more involved behind the scenes than is shown. Wait, that works on two levels there for us. Anyway...I am curious if this biting is just with me, or is a Safe House anomaly." "Hmmm," Pip thought. "Let's see if she bits me," Pip said bravely extending her arms. Melody released her grip on the bunny. The bunny shuffled herself and jumped over to Pip's arms and started to lick her cheek. "Seems to like you Mistress Pip," Sneaky smiled. Pip cooed at the bunny. "Yes, she does. Doesn't she? So then, your meta-thinking bunny and I must understand each other, and how do you know it is a 'she' anyway, Mel?" "Um...I don't. So I can keep her?" Melody said with much hope. "Sure," Pip confirmed cradling the bunny. "But you do know Grey Wolf is not too fond of bunnies." "True," Melody said with much weight. "Is he here?" Pip thought for a minute. "Yes, he's in his room. Been rather quiet lately, in fact. Sneaky can you go and fetch him." "Yes, Mistress," Sneaky said already on her way. Melody looked at Pip nervous. A bunny alone Grey would be rather fierce, but a bunny that is like meta-thinking, Melody shuddered. The heavy steps of Grey Wolf was echoing down the west wing stairs of the Safe House. Pip opened her arms and let the bunny hop out. The bunny hopped behind the couch just as Grey entered the main floor. Grey came over to the two women. "You asked for me, ladies?" Pip and Melody looked at each other and smiled. Grey found their silence odd but caught a flash of fur as it entered his peripheral vision. The bunny hopped out from behind the couch, crept close to the wolf, and twitched its nose at him. Grey just sat there a minute and stared at the creature as if he was not sure it was real. For a second, Melody actually thought the two were somewhat getting along when the bunny stretched out its neck and bit Grey Wolf hard on the pinky toe of his paw. In a flash, the wolf was on all fours tearing after the bunny, who was no slouch when being pursued. The rabbit sped back behind the couch and Grey right after it as they tore around the room. Pip and Mel wasted no time. Pip fell on the bunny as she ran by the chair to try and shield the bunny from Grey. Melody took a brave leap and jumped on the wolf's back to wrench him onto the floor away from the bunny. Grey fell to the floor and Melody let go soon enough to land next to him instead of under him. All parties were left panting on the floor. "Can someone please tell me *why* I cannot catch that bunny?" Grey asked from the flat of his back. "I've never seen a rabbit move like that," Pip said sitting up with the bunny in her arms. "It was like she was on fire. No one could of caught her. Hey Mel, this bunny is like meta-thinking." "Good thing too," Melody gasped still trying to catch her breath. Grey sat up, looked at the bunny, and looked at Melody. "You brought it here, didn't you?" "She jumped into my arms. I could not resist," Melody said with urging eyes. Melody got up, walked over to Pip, and held her arms out for the bunny. The rabbit hopped out of Pip's arms into Melody's. "See Grey. Harmless adorable bunny rabbit. Now bunny, go tell Grey you are sorry." Melody stepped a few steps back over to where Grey was and sat down next to him with the rabbit in her lap. The bunny jumped out of her lap and scooted over to Grey, but this time when she came over to him, she raised and licked Grey's chin. "See Grey. It likes you," Pip smiled. Grey cuddled up the bunny and attempted to pet the small thing. "Can we keep her?" he asked. "I think we are going to have to now," Pip commented raising herself into the chair. "What shall we name her?" Melody asked bouncing with glee on the floor. The three of them were silent a moment. Melody smirked. "Well, we have a small white fluffy bunny. Who bits rather fiercely, and races about so that not even a wolf can catch her. Hmmm... Maybe 'meta-thinking' *would* be a good name for her." Pip and Grey both looked at Melody with exasperated. "We cannot have a bunny named *that*," Pip said. "Why not?" Melody asked. "Because, then the name will most certainly be shortened to 'Meta' and a 19th century Swedish lady-of-the-evening was named 'Meta'," Pip explained. "Isn't that from a movie?" Melody asked. "Yeah, Newsies," Pip nodded. "I doubt many of the listees will get that reference since it is not a well-known movie," Melody stated. "Well, *we* do, and that bunny is not going to be called 'Meta'," Pip said with finality. "There is always Fang and Fluffy. Both very popular with the masses. And HP related." "I have a suggestion," Grey piped up still cuddling the bunny. "There is a internet comic strip [1] that has a bunny quite like this one. Its name is Coney. I think that would fit her quite nicely." Pip and Mel looked at each other. "Coney the bunny," they said together. "Seem quite in order, and a bit odd, so why not," Melody said. "Well then, if that is settled," Grey said as he deposited Coney into Melody's arms, "I am off." Melody and Pip looked at the wolf dumb struck. "Why this time Wolf?" Pip asked. "Well partly because I need to cold tundra again to regain my wolfness and rest my head, but also because this bunny makes me thirst for the hunt again. I mean, I pounced on that thing without remorse. Can't do that every morning just because I long for the cold hunting grounds. No, I must be off North." Grey said while bustling himself to be ready to leave. "But I just got use to you being around again Grey," Melody pouted following him to the door. "Ah, Mel. I will be back," Grey smiled gently. "I *need* the cold North right now. Please, understand. It is the best." "And we cannot reach you there, can we?" asked Melody looking teary eyed. "No, Mel. But at least you have Coney in my absence. See one mammal for another really," Grey rationalized wiping her tear with his furry paw. Pip walked up behind the girl and put her arm around her. "Another thing you will get use to Mel. Grey *must* come and go, but he always comes back even if some might wish he doesn't." Melody looked up at the wolf. "Ok. Go. Enjoy your cold." Grey bowed to the two women, and clicked the door open. With a flurry of fur, he was off to the north. "Do be careful Grey," Melody called, "and no killing Coney's parents." Melody Who- (a)would like everyone to know that no animals were hurt in the making of this TBAY. Well, Grey was, but he is healing in his tundra. (b)apologies profusely if she lost *everyone* there with the bunny/meta-thinking parallel. It actually runs deeper than on the surface. But now, the safe house has a meta-thinking member. The White Rabbit. Now if only it could talk. [1]Coney the baby rabbit is ? 1995-2002 Bill Holbrook. Used with permission. You can read about Coney's family at http://www.kevinandkell.com/. From oppen at mycns.net Sat Dec 7 06:13:09 2002 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:13:09 -0600 Subject: Hermione Under Cross-Examination Message-ID: <014201c29db7$b8c9bcc0$bc510043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 47882 One of my learned HP4GU colleagues (I disremember just which one and I get the list in digest form; please forgive me) countered my earlier statement that twelve-year-old girls are not known for their fortitude under adult cross-examination by pointing out that Hermione _did_ lie successfully to Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall after the Troll-In-The-Loo incident. Were I a certain politician, I would point out that at this time, Hermione is AFAIK _eleven,_ and I was referring to _twelve_-year-old girls...but that would be casuistical. Instead, I will focus on the situation. Hermione wasn't questioned at length after the Troll-In-The-Loo incident because she had just been through a terrifying experience, and her reputation for truthfulness and rule-abiding was quite solid. (Had she been one of the Weasley Twins, they'd have all but been bringing in the bright hot lights, methinks---can you _imagine_ what those two would do with a troll?) However, if she were caught in the act of theft of magical potion supplies, she'd have a lot harder time hiding behind her reputation, and I somehow doubt that Professor Snape would be as impressed with her perfect record as Professor McGonagall was; he's also got a track record of not being as lenient as other teachers. Now, _if she's been caught in the act of stealing,_ she's in fairly bad trouble to begin with; I don't think that stealing is considered as venial as a few easily-reversed curses and hexes, and any school I've ever been to would consider stealing a very bad thing to be caught doing. Stealing a teacher's personal, expensive supplies would have landed _me_ in Deep, Deep Kimchee, believe you me! And, unlike me, Hermione's a girl who _wants to_ be good. She _believes in_ adults. Harry's justifably wary of them, and Ron's probably got _years_ of experience with the backwash of Gred-and-Forge's pranks, but I don't see Hermione as the sort of girl with years of experience dealing with angry adults. While I yield to none in my admiration for her, _she is twelve years old,_ people! (At least at the time of the Polyjuice Incident) Now, a _different_ Hermione...one who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, one who was used to defying or ignoring adult authority, one who maybe had abusive or semi-abusive guardians or parents the way Harry did/does, would probably be a lot harder nut to crack. Or, an older Hermione, one who felt herself less at the mercy of adults. I stand by my earlier statement that Hermie was _very_ lucky not to be caught. And that, barring canon to the contrary, it would have been a great deal easier to just owl-post to the place in Diagon Alley that sells supplies and _buy_ what they needed. If nothing else, this would also prevent Snapiekins from going through his supplies, noticing what was missing, and getting a pretty good idea of what might be going on. (My best pal's the son of a chemistry teacher, and his dad _knew_ what things could be used for...made home production of Certain Things a tad more difficult, that did, at least till I got my hands on the Edmunds Scientific catalogue). IOW, they were not only taking a chance of Hermie getting into Deep Kimchee or suffering a Fate Worse Than Death (expulsion! Get your minds out of the gutter!) but of Snape deciding to play detective. Now, if _Lockhart_ had been Potions Master, they could have asked him to give them the ingredients so they could make up a "Gilderoy Lockhart, Super Wizard" potion, and he'd probably be prat and phony enough to believe them. From Lynx412 at aol.com Sat Dec 7 05:05:48 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:05:48 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in ... Message-ID: <3b.30e1ec01.2b22dbac@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47883 In a message dated 12/6/02 4:53:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, suzchiles at pobox.com writes: > I think it's important the Madam Pomfrey have a "no questions asked" kind of > policy. We have to assume that the kids at Hogwart's are going to be > experimenting with potions and charms, and even hexes upon occasion. If > Nurse asked too many questions of the students, they would then avoid > hospital and try to fix themselves or each other, which could be > disastrous. > Remember Eloise Midgen who cursed off her own nose? I think it's better for > the students to know that they can trust Madam Pomfrey and get fixed up > again quickly. There's another point to that. Just because she doesn't ask questions doesn't mean she doesn't report. In GoF, Dumbledore seems to know that Harry will recognize and understand the use of polyjuice potion. That might also explain some of Snape's attitude toward the trio. He may believe that Harry stole the stuff and made the potion, then the boys gave Hermione a dose with cat hair as a prank. Given the other flaws in that little bit...what *did* Crabb and Goyle say when they were released...he probably realized who snuck into the Slitherin common room. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Dec 7 06:46:38 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:46:38 -0800 Subject: Hermione and the Polyjuice Potion, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Hermione Under Cross-Examination In-Reply-To: <014201c29db7$b8c9bcc0$bc510043@hppav> References: <014201c29db7$b8c9bcc0$bc510043@hppav> Message-ID: <109708319542.20021206224638@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47884 Hi, Friday, December 06, 2002, 10:13:09 PM, Eric wrote: > I stand by my earlier statement that Hermie was _very_ lucky not to be > caught. Very much so, in my opinion, too. I've always wondered why Hermione was so dead set on making the potion. Harry and Ron would have been perfectly willing to let that plan drop, but she wanted to make this potion very, very much. Almost as if it was a personal thing, wanting to prove she can, even though it's supposed to be a most complicated brew. I was surprised at the lengths she went through to make this happen, including sedating Crabbe and Goyle (and whatever happened to Millicent in that respect?), stealing the supplies... And then the ironic mistake with the cat hair, getting Hermione back down to earth, in a way. It all seemed a bit out of character for her. She wanted to make this potion, no matter what, and it showed a side of her that's almost Slytherin. Anything to achieve your means . I wonder if we'll see this part of Hermione pop up again in future books. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From shaalwyd at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 06:34:26 2002 From: shaalwyd at yahoo.com (Rebecca Martin) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:34:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Sorting Hat, the House Cup, and institutionalised injustice In-Reply-To: <1038951728.5029.76439.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20021207063426.4795.qmail@web12501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47885 Ive looked through the archives, but I cant see anything that has dealt with this issue before. My apologies if Ive missed anything this is my first post. There has been some debate about why Slytherin House has been allowed to continue, given that the majority of dark wizards come from there. Certainly being a Slytherin does not automatically mean that you are evil, but it does indicate a penchant for power and a willingness to prioritise personal goals and welfare over others. The leading theory seems to be that it is to teach and guide these potentially dangerous wizards to positive paths, but I dont see much evidence of this guidance in canon (indeed, as Head of House Snape should be the most careful, and he introduces his first Slytherin class to potions with promises of brewing fame dangerous words to an ambitious bunch!). Indeed, there seems to be very little discussion of magical responsibility built into the curriculum. Theres Care of Magical Creatures but theres no discussion of the morality of transfiguring a pig into a desk, and how the pig might feel about that. Its not magical, so it doesnt matter? Theres Muggle Studies, but that doesnt seem to contain any component of responsibility to a weaker people, and the MOM certainly seems to be fairly free with memory charms to protect itself from discovery from the MW. Even DADA only identifies and forbids certain spells (thereby implying that anything else is OK), it doesnt delve into the philosophy of magic, or give students any way to evaluate for themselves what qualifies as a dark use of power in any situation. Theres plenty of *rules*, but there are no *morals* taught. I belabour this only to make it clear that this is a problem with the Hogwarts system, not just Slytherin. In fact, far from positive moral guidance, I believe there is an institutional unfairness that makes the negative traits of Slytherins more likely to flourish. The Sorting Hat is a great idea. It allows children to interact with those who have interests and attitudes similar to their own, maximising their potential to make friends and enabling staff to adjust their teaching style based on the strengths/needs of the group they are teaching. (Im not sure if this does happen at Hogwarts, but the opportunity is certainly there). When you add the House Cup, however, problems arise. Lets forget for a moment the unfairness of a system which means that the strengths of Hufflepuff are the least often tested, therefore making them the perpetual last-place-holders. Slytherins, whose natural ambition needs so desperately to be channelled into positive outlets, are faced with the House Cup, which has to be more significant to a group bound by their need for greatness than to groups bound by ties of loyalty (Hufflepuff), intelligence (Ravenclaw), or bravery (Gryffindor). Again and again we see them cheat to gain points, or to discredit others and cause them to lose points and what is created is us-against-them. Slytherins against the rest of the Hogwarts population, who cheer just as hard for Gryffindors win as they would for their own, just so long as it isnt Slytherin. Its a classic ingroup/outgroup phenomenon. So what recourse is left to Slytherins than to band amongst themselves and to use whatever means necessary to gain the respect they so desperately crave, by intimidation and manipulation when other options are denied to them? Most minority groups find that there is some internalisation of the discrimination they are faced with. Maybe its the system that makes Slytherins evil as much as their innate tendencies. Certainly there doesnt seem to be a lot of effort to encourage and reward positive behaviours or even an educational focus on recognising the responsibilities inherent in power and an appalling amount of institutionalised competition, which has to be like offering single-malt to an alcoholic. Shaalwyd, who would like to make it very clear (in the light of such a critical first post!) that she would love to go to Hogwarts, and chooses to major in the History of Magic, even though it is at a muggle University. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From abobos_revenge at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 07:46:28 2002 From: abobos_revenge at hotmail.com (Alex) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 23:46:28 -0800 Subject: Hermione and the Polyjuice Potion, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Hermione Under Cross-Examination References: <014201c29db7$b8c9bcc0$bc510043@hppav> <109708319542.20021206224638@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47886 Susanne: It all seemed a bit out of character for her. She wanted to make this potion, no matter what, and it showed a side of her that's almost Slytherin. Anything to achieve your means . I wonder if we'll see this part of Hermione pop up again in future books. Me: I would say that we did see it again, in Goblet of Fire. Towards the end of the book, she successfully captures the illegal Animagus Rita Skeeter in a bottle, Skeeter having transformed into a beetle. Anything to achieve your means, even trapping someone in a tiny bottle. Not that Skeeter didn't deserve it, of course. It would definitely be interesting to see if she does any more crazy things like that in the future, though... Alex [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abobos_revenge at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 07:12:22 2002 From: abobos_revenge at hotmail.com (Alex) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 23:12:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Snitch (was Could Quidditch really work?) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47887 bboy_mn: Also, we don't know the range of movement allowable to the Snitch. I may not necessarily have to stay within the same boundaries as the players. I could be hiding in the stands with the spectators. Plus it is small, highly manuverable, and fast; you could lose sight of it very easily. It could be sitting motionless in the grass, or hiding behind a goal post or hovering 100 ft above the game. Me: According to Quidditch Through the Ages, the Golden Snitch is bewitched to prevent it leaving the pitch, but, like the players, it is able to fly pretty much as high as it wants. So it can't go into the stands, or behind them; it, like the players, is limited to the Quidditch pitch. Alex [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Dec 7 11:35:53 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 11:35:53 -0000 Subject: Cat!Hermione and Madam Pomfrey (was Re: Some mistakes in ... In-Reply-To: <3b.30e1ec01.2b22dbac@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lynx412 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/6/02 4:53:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > suzchiles at p... writes: > > > > I think it's important the Madam Pomfrey have a "no questions > > asked" kind ofpolicy. > > Remember Eloise Midgen who cursed off her own nose? I think it's > > better forthe students to know that they can trust Madam Pomfrey > > and get fixed up again quickly. Hogwarts may well also have a policy of ignoring offenses that have already carried their own punishment. After all, Hermione spent several months in hospital. The teachers concerned may well have felt that was a far more effective punishment than an evening's detention. As for Harry and Ron, McGonagall, later in CoS, allows Harry and Ron up to see Petrified!Hermione because she knows what a close friendship the Trio have. So, again, whichever of the Trio actually stole the ingredients, it may have been felt that a close friend being hospitalised for so long *should* have been a sufficient lesson in *why* those ingredients (and the Polyjuice Potion ) were restricted. They're dangerous. > There's another point to that. Just because she doesn't ask > questions doesn't mean she doesn't report. In GoF, Dumbledore > seems to know that Harry will recognize and understand the use of > polyjuice potion. That might also explain some of Snape's attitude > toward the trio. He may believe that Harry stole the stuff and > made the potion, then the boys gave Hermione a dose with cat hair > as a prank. Given the other flaws in that little bit...what *did* > Crabb and Goyle say when they were released...he probably realized > who snuck into the Slitherin common room. > > Cheryl > This is also explains Snape's attitude in GoF when he assumes that the boomslang skin may have been stolen by Harry - not so much 'Harry is guilty of everything' but more 'Harry has done this before'. Pip!Squeak From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 11:38:58 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 11:38:58 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47890 I arive with a large heart shaped box sugar coated chocolates to theorise about love. I am feeling rather romantic so bare with me if I do end up pairing every secondary character off. But lets start with the main ones: Ron: Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to be together. But the more I look at it the more and more cliche it looks. Yes they would make an adoreable couple, yes it is quite clear that Ron fancys the pants off Hermione but IIRC JKR say that each of the main characters would fall for Mr/Miss Wrong. I believe that Hermione is Rons Miss Wrong. I think it would be better if he ended up with someone else, someone already foreshadowed in the books. What was that? Padma you say? Goodness no, Rons going to swallow his pride, grow up and ask Eliose Midgen to go on a date. Harry: Will not date Ginny - no! I can't stand this coupling. If you like it then fair enough but I have different plans for Ginny. Anyway I don't think Harry will end up with anyone, perhaps Hermione for a while, just during her phase where she can't believe that Ron doesn't fancy her anymore. But I have different plans for Hermione aswell. Anyway Harry is going to die before any serious relationship developes. Ginny: Has to end up with Neville. No questions asked this would be the cutest couple in the Potterverse and would make for some excellent scenes between Neville and the Weasly clan as they all became far too over protective of their little sister. Snape and Petunia: OK, so I am pritty sure he was in love with her sister but I can see the dark haired Snape fall for this blonde...er...bombshell? Once she discovers she's magical ofcourse. Ernie MacMillan and Hannah Abbot: Cannon? They were swopping chocolate frog cards in the Three Broomsticks in GoF. A sure sign of love if ever I saw one. Hermione: Hmm. This one was tricky as I had already paired off Ron. But I think there could come a time when Ron bares his soul to her, she lets him down gently, he takes a while to get over her but when he does she discoveres that she really did like his affections. So I think she might end up with Draco, once she gets over Ron, if and only if he turns to the light side. If not then...how about...er...Studmuffin!Dudley. What! I hear you scream. Studmuffin!Dudley, is this girl mad! Well all I am saying is Harry hasn't seen his cousin in 10 months, you can loose alot of weight in 10 months - and I didn't say that Studmuffins had to have a perticularly nice personality. Well there you go, I'm all romanced out. Theresnothingtoit (who appologises that the entire above was based on the flimsised of cannon and some of it just based in my brain but I forgot to pack my books when I went to university but I go home next week Woo Hoo!) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Dec 7 14:05:54 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 09:05:54 EST Subject: Origin of term 'metathinking' (was: metathinking? No.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47891 KSA: > Carol wrote: > > As far as I understand the use of "meta" this is > absolutely correct. Metalanguage is language about > language and meta-analysis is an analysis of analyses. > Metathinking is the thinking about thinking. > >with"metathinking" you have an English word unnaturally >attached to a Greek one. Either find out the Greek >word for "thinking" and put "meta" in front of it, or >find out what the proper word for "thinking about >thinking" is. "Epistemology," if I recall correctly I thought that this term had been introduced to the list from the field of computing, or computer games, and that the analogy was thus with virtual reality vs real life, rather than it meaning 'thinking about thinking'. But I'm not sure. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 14:42:37 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:42:37 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] metathinking? No. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47892 KSA wrote that instead of using the term "meta-thinking, we should maybe be using the term "epistemology". While this is a good suggestion, I still don't think that it's quite what we're doing with Magic Dishwasher. The term "episteme" was initially developed by the psychologist, sociologist and historian Michel Foucault, and he used it to describe power. He posited that knowledge can become a system of thought which becomes controlling, in terms of being socially legitimated and institutional. He called his investigations into knowledge an "archaeology of epistemes", from the Greek *epistomai*, meaning to know, or understand. Epistomology is then, the verification theory of knowledge, concerned with distinguishing genuine from spurious knowledge. Does anyone think that this fits with what we've been doing on the list? If you do, I'd be happy to accept it as a term in the discussion. I'm still not sure it's accurate though. Shane _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat Dec 7 15:25:22 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 10:25:22 -0500 Subject: Voldemort's graveyard confessions (warning: contains metadebate) Message-ID: <368E3C8B.4CE01319.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47893 I would like to try to crystallise and move on some of the metathinking debate (BTW can I assure Melody that I for one follow this and Magic Dishwasher (1) with interest even if I don't post on it often). One of the games we play here is to pretend that the world described in the HP books is real, and then try to get it all to hang together consistently. For the playing of this game, it is unfair to bring what Pip calls the 'outside-in' perspective. However, this game is weaker, considered as a mechanism for arriving at statements that in some sense may be considered true, than scientific enquiry. That's because we are limited to the finite text of canon, and because the use of the imagination is a necessary component of the construction of the HP-world (the 'fictive universe'). The first limitation means that complex theories such as MD can 'use up' canon, leaving nothing behind (until a new book appears) for opponents to test it against. The second, and more important, limitation means that different people have different observations of the HP world. There isn't the element of objectivity that is assumed in (most) scientific enquiry. If I self-consistently read something in a different tone of voice to the way you do, there is no way to verify which is 'right' - and hence there is no right way, subject to the general demand of consistency. I have a practical example that is pertinent to MD, which I feel I do not myself have the tools to resolve. In the graveyard scene of GOF, MD holds that Voldemort and some of the DEs are expertly lying. Now, in the real world, when people lie, they do not always manage to behave in exactly the way they would when telling the truth - they give things away with body language, for example. In the fictive universe, we don't have access to all the necessary information, only what the author gives us. One consequence of this, IMO, is that conventions arise for describing behaviour in literature that signal lying or concealed emotion. (Think of Ron writing a foot away from his pad in the potions lesson when he hears Krum has asked Hermione to Bulgaria). Consciously noting that conventions of this sort are applied is a form of 'metathinking' (no, I don't like the word either; IMO all our analysis is ultimately metathinking) that I don't believe has been applied in MD; furthermore because it to some extent takes the place of the controllled measurements of science that can't be done with an imaginative text it can be argued that it is valid in the 'inside-thinking' game. So, listies, is there anything in the way that JKR has written the graveyard scene itself (not the context of the 'dirty war' between Dumbledore and Voldemort), that indicates either that Voldemort is telling the truth - perhaps more than is good for his cause - or lying - perhaps in a way that would indicate to an alert Harry or Dumbledore that there is more going than on the surface? Or do we have to settle for a view that lying and truth-telling are indistinguishable within this scene, and can only be discerned by reference to the larger plot? David 1) You will find the Magic Dishwasher interpretation explained at: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html#md thanks to hard work by Cindy, Pip, Dicey, Elkins, and Porphyria __________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ From jasonjacqui at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 16:29:11 2002 From: jasonjacqui at yahoo.com (Jacqui ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:29:11 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "theresnothingtoit " wrote: > I arive with a large heart shaped box sugar coated chocolates to > theorise about love. I am feeling rather romantic so bare with me ... > Ron: Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to be > together. Me: Ron & Hermione will definately be together...Hermione has already had her wrong person...Krum....In the next book Ron will probably have his wrong person, and then JKR will be able to pair them two... > > Harry: Will not date Ginny - no! Me: This is a tough one, I had toyed with the idea on Harry & Ginny, but your right it doesn't quite fit, and I think GInny & Neville would be an absolutely perfect match! I can just image the twins having a ball with this one! LOL! > Snape and Petunia.... Me: Never in a trillion years... > Ernie MacMillan and Hannah Abbot: Me: Its possible, but I am to wrapped up in the others... > Hermione: Hmm. This one was tricky as I had already paired off > Ron. But I think there could come a time when Ron bares his soul to > her, she lets him down gently, he takes a while to get over her but > when he does she discoveres that she really did like his affections. > So I think she might end up with Draco, once she gets over Ron... Me: That is quite an interesting match. Hermione and Draco eh? Personally I think there personalities would clash too much, and regardless if he did come to the "light side" He still has his parents to deal with. His whole life he has been brought up in a "pure blood" status...no, they would never work...Like I said...Ron & Hermione! :) > Well that is just my opinions, and I can't wait to see somenswers! :) Jacquu From kaityf at jorsm.com Sat Dec 7 16:48:49 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 10:48:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Origin of term 'metathinking' (was: metathinking? No.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021207103707.012875d0@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47895 Carol wrote: > > As far as I understand the use of "meta" this is > > absolutely correct. Metalanguage is language about > > language and meta-analysis is an analysis of analyses. > > Metathinking is the thinking about thinking. KSA: > >with"metathinking" you have an English word unnaturally > >attached to a Greek one. Either find out the Greek > >word for "thinking" and put "meta" in front of it, or > >find out what the proper word for "thinking about > >thinking" is. "Epistemology," if I recall correctly Carol (Me): There is no such thing in English as an "unnatural" attachment of a morpheme from one language to another morpheme from another language. We do that in English all the time. "Language" is not a Greek word, but I assure you that "metalanguage" is quite real and used all the time in the linguistics field. The ability to make such attachments is part of what makes the English language so rich in vocabulary. Shane said: >[Michel Foucault] posited >that knowledge can become a system of thought which becomes controlling, in >terms of being socially legitimated and institutional. He called his >investigations into knowledge an "archaeology of epistemes", from the Greek >*epistomai*, meaning to know, or understand. Epistomology is then, the >verification theory of knowledge, concerned with distinguishing genuine from >spurious knowledge. Carol (Me): I didn't think "epistemology" was the right word either, so I'm glad to see this explanation. Eloise added: >I thought that this term had been introduced to the list from the field of >computing, or computer games, and that the analogy was thus with virtual >reality vs real life, rather than it meaning 'thinking about thinking'. But >I'm not sure. Carol (Me): Now this is very helpful to me, although I'm at a loss to see how "metathinking" indicates any kind of comparison between virtual reality vs. real life. Anyway, how about a word like "virtuality" instead of metathinking? Or "vereality"? Make up something entirely new that can't be confused with something else. Newbies coming to the discussion and seeing "metathinking" will react just as I did (although I'm not a newbie) to this word. It just confuses the discussion. We can't take a word and use it to mean whatever we want it to mean or we're a bunch of Humpty Dumptys. Carol From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 17:02:31 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:02:31 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47896 Jacquu wrote: > Ron & Hermione will definately be together...Hermione has > already had her wrong person...Krum....In the next book Ron will > probably have his wrong person, and then JKR will be able to pair > them two... Actually, it could be that Ron has already had his "wrong person". He had a rather obvious crush on Fleur in GoF. He did ask her to the ball after all and also blustered at her when she says good bye to Harry. Seems he was aiming kind of high, but you can't blame him at his age. Melody From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 17:15:04 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:15:04 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47897 PLease believe me that I am not a rabid shipper, but the connection between H/G will be crucial to the outcome. Read the books again and begin with the platform scene where Harry watched her follow the train. This was a classic opener. In all good detective novels the main characters are introduced early on and then kept on ice until needed. Harry saves Ginny's life also and she now owes him a life debt. There are many pointers to the outcome and there is a very good thread at the Sugarquill which gives it all in detail. When I have time I shall post the link to it. Much of the H/G hatred comes from bad sugary fanfiction and I can't blame people for their disbelief. As for Draco - get real chaps. He is JK Rowlings way of showing up how good Harry is. I don't even think he is destined for redemption, or really anything other than the bad guy bit part,unlike Professor Snape. For Neville et al, they are just window dressing. Much is revealed in chat with JKR and GInny's larger role is one aspect of this. Rgds Diane --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jacqui " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "theresnothingtoit > " wrote: > > I arive with a large heart shaped box sugar coated chocolates to > > theorise about love. I am feeling rather romantic so bare with > me ... > > > Ron: Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to > be > > together. > > Me: Ron & Hermione will definately be together...Hermione has > already had her wrong person...Krum....In the next book Ron will > probably have his wrong person, and then JKR will be able to pair > them two... > > > > > Harry: Will not date Ginny - no! > > > Me: This is a tough one, I had toyed with the idea on Harry & Ginny, > but your right it doesn't quite fit, and I think GInny & Neville > would be an absolutely perfect match! I can just image the twins > having a ball with this one! LOL! > > > > Snape and Petunia.... > > Me: Never in a trillion years... > > > > Ernie MacMillan and Hannah Abbot: > > Me: Its possible, but I am to wrapped up in the others... > > > > Hermione: Hmm. This one was tricky as I had already paired off > > Ron. But I think there could come a time when Ron bares his soul > to > > her, she lets him down gently, he takes a while to get over her but > > when he does she discoveres that she really did like his > affections. > > So I think she might end up with Draco, once she gets over Ron... > > Me: That is quite an interesting match. Hermione and Draco eh? > Personally I think there personalities would clash too much, and > regardless if he did come to the "light side" He still has his > parents to deal with. His whole life he has been brought up in > a "pure blood" status...no, they would never work...Like I said...Ron > & Hermione! :) > > > > > Well that is just my opinions, and I can't wait to see somenswers! :) > > Jacquu From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 18:27:03 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:27:03 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diane " < cressida_tt at h...> wrote: > PLease believe me that I am not a rabid shipper, but the connection > between H/G will be crucial to the outcome. Read the books again and > begin with the platform scene where Harry watched her follow the > train. This was a classic opener. In all good detective novels the > main characters are introduced early on and then kept on ice until > needed. Harry saves Ginny's life also and she now owes him a life > debt. There are many pointers to the outcome and there is a very good > thread at the Sugarquill which gives it all in detail. When I have > time I shall post the link to it. Much of the H/G hatred comes from > bad sugary fanfiction and I can't blame people for their disbelief. But it's possible for their relationship to be very important even if it's not a romantic relationship. I'm not saying it /won't/ happen, just that I wouldn't be surprised if Harry wound up entirely single. I think it's fair to guess that Harry is destined for greatness, since the series is ABOUT him. And when we look at the books, we can see two other examples of greatness realized - Dumbledore and Voldemort. Both single, as far as we know to this point. And in our world, people generally do not achieve great things while maintaining a healthy romantic relationship - politicians are noted for their infidelity, entertainment figures are known for the brevity of their marriages. People who do great things often have to put their aspirations ahead of their personal lives. Just something to consider - I'm not making predictions at this point, because I really don't think we have enough information to make any kind of reliable decision. > > As for Draco - get real chaps. He is JK Rowlings way of showing up > how good Harry is. I don't even think he is destined for redemption, > or really anything other than the bad guy bit part,unlike Professor > Snape. For Neville et al, they are just window dressing. Much is > revealed in chat with JKR and GInny's larger role is one aspect of > this. Amen. Draco is a foil for Harry. When Dumbledore talks about making choices, I think he's dictating theme: Harry represents "making good choices" and Draco represents "making bad choices." I'll stop there because my tummy feels yucky. Later, folks. -CK From heidit at netbox.com Sat Dec 7 18:46:04 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 10:46:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: SHIP: re: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021207184604.83865.qmail@web80314.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47899 "theresnothingtoit wrote: > > Ron: Now I did start believing that Ron and > Hermione were ment to > be > > together. > > Me: Ron & Hermione will definately be > together...Hermione has > already had her wrong person...Krum....In the next > book Ron will > probably have his wrong person, and then JKR will be > able to pair > them two... But that doesn't gel with what JKR said in interviews about Book 4. She specifically said that in Book 4, everyone falls in love with the wrong person - now, it's possible to argue that Ron "fell in love" with Fleur and wasn't in love with Hermione at all in Book 4, but that pretty much eviscerates "they will get together in Book 5 or later" the argument of those who say that Hermione and Ron had the post-Yule Ball fight because he's in love with her and she reciprocates. In other words, if he's in love with her in Book 4, she's the wrong person for him. If he's not in love with her (either because he's in love with Fleur, or for any other reason) then they did not have the fight *because* they are in love with each other. One cannot make both arguments if one takes JKR's interviews as canon or canon-indicative (although, of course, there are those on this list who don't take her statements as anything of the sort, and they can totally disregard any arguments about people falling for the wrong people in Book 4 at their leisure). Of course, it's possible to also argue, from JKR's statement, that when she said everyone she didn't really *mean* everyone - I mean, was Cho wrong for Cedric (presuming they fell for each other at all)? If she was, it doesn't really matter now, as he's head. And what about Ernie and Hannah, trading cards as they were? Or Fred and Angelina? Or Draco and Pansy? (well, I know a bunch of people who hope they are wrong for each other, and that he's right for either Hermione Harry but that's a whole other post) But she likely meant at least the 3 leads, which includes Ron and Hermione. Oh, and Harry? He fell for Cho. Case closed on that :) Heidi, SHIPping @ sea! From heidit at netbox.com Sat Dec 7 18:56:51 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 10:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021207185651.24648.qmail@web80311.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47900 --- "Diane " > As for Draco - get real chaps. He is JK Rowlings way > of showing up > how good Harry is. I don't even think he is destined > for redemption, > or really anything other than the bad guy bit > part,unlike Professor > Snape. Well, that's an incredibly presumptive conclusion! How do you know that JKR isn't trying to show parallels between Snape and Draco, as she's clearly showing parallels between Harry and James, in tandem? I mean, even Dumbledore compares the animus between Harry and Draco with the animus between James and Snape - and we *know* from Book 3 that Snape tried to warn James that there was a traitor close to him - of course, he got it wrong as to who the traitor was, but he did try. Why are you so quick to dismiss any parallels between Snape and Draco when we *know* from the books that at least Sirius (and likely his other friends (i.e. James) too) thought that teenaged Severus was a Dark-Arts practicing git? They didn't think any better of him than Harry and his friends think of Draco, and Snape turned out (at least from what we've seen in canon so far) to be On The Side of Good. Why is it impossible to think that she might be showing something similar with Draco? heidi From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 19:03:31 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Megalynn S.) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:03:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Couples in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47901 Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to be together. But the more I look at it the more and more cliche it looks. Yes they would make an adoreable couple, yes it is quite clear that Ron fancys the pants off Hermione but IIRC JKR say that each of the main characters would fall for Mr/Miss Wrong. I believe that Hermione is Rons Miss Wrong. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I believe the quote was that everyone was in love with the wrong person in book four, meaning Hermione/Krum, Harry/Cho, and Ron/Fleur Ran and Hermione are meant to be! Megalynn _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From squireandknight at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 19:32:08 2002 From: squireandknight at yahoo.com (Becky ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:32:08 -0000 Subject: "Meta-thinking" on MD Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47902 Okay, having been quite interested in MD from the first, and following the thread with a great deal of interest, I finally actually have something to say. (For the sake of this post, I will use the term "meta-thinking" as I believe it has been defined by the MD crowd.) I, for one, think MD is fairly easily defended even while using meta-thinking, but I can understand the reluctance to discuss it when you're bringing a theory that is using only canon to the table. So, since I actually enjoy meta-thinking to a certain extent, I'll endeavor to answer some of the meta-thinking objections to MD that I have seen posted. I'll even throw in an explanation on why such-and-such an argument is meta-thinking for those who are still confused (and so someone can check my opinion of meta-thinking if I have managed to define it wrong). 1. MD goes against the theme of "choices" in HP. First, this is meta-thinking because obviously RL does not have any actual clear "themes," and the MDDT is treating MD as RL. So saying that Ddore wouldn't mastermind Wormtail's escape because JKR has a theme on choices, denies Ddore the right of being an actual RL 3-D person, instead turning into JKR's puppet. Which he is, but MD is looking at him as an actual human being, with his own moral choices to make. I also disagree with this argument simply because I have yet to see any reason to think that JKR is taking a clear stand on having unfettered choices, and that no one is trying to manipulate the characters into certain decisions. True, Dumbledore says, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." But, I can't take this as a sign that Dumbledore will never try to direct anyone into certain decisions, because that's not what he says in the first place. He simply seems to say that a person's choices are important, not that they are never maneuvered into certain ones. I see no reason to believe that JKR has taken a clear stance on choices. In fact, there is even *precedent* for a certain managing by a third party when choices come into play: a. The whole Quirrelmort incident. Harry even said: "I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance." Read *choice.* MD as a theory, largely reads as one that has a whole lot of focus on individual choices. It has been commented on this list that Dumbledore has given a lot of people a chance: Lupin, Hagrid, Snape, and Sirius (the chance to prove his innocence). MD really only takes this to a higher level. b. CoS, Chapter Fourteen, Cornelius Fudge: "'...you will find that I will only *truly* have left this school when none here are loyal to me. You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.' "For a second, Harry was almost sure Dumbledore's eyes flickered toward the corner where he and Ron stood hidden." CoS, Chapter Eighteen, Dobby's Reward: "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you." Once again, it appears that Harry was largely *directed,* otherwise, what was the reason for the episode in Hagrid's cabin? I'm not trying to suggest that Ddore knew exactly what was going to happen. After all, this supports the MD idea that Ddore has a number of back-up plans, and this just happened to be the one to bear fruit. But I do think that Ddore has been shown trying to lead Harry down a certain path. Last one: c. GoF, Chapter Thirty-Five, Veritaserum: "Who told Cedric to open it underwater? I did. I trusted that he would pass the information on to you. Decent people are so easy to manipulate, Potter." "You told me at the Yule Ball a house-elf called Dobby had given you a Christmas present"..."And your little elf friend ran straight to Snape's office and then hurried to find you..." Now I have to wonder, do you think that Cedric's decision to share with Harry the secret to opening the egg, was somehow less of one because that was what he was supposed to do? That Dobby's bringing the gillyweed wasn't quite as much an act of friendship because he was manipulated into doing so? I don't. IMO, there is a fairly clear "theme" of people making choices with the information that they are given - sometimes choices that have, in fact, been orchestrated by other parties. I do not think it wipes out the importance of the *choice* though. This is most clearly shown to me when Harry's honorable decision to share the cup with Cedric - and ignore his own jealousy, and desire to win - ends with Cedric being killed in a trap set for Harry. Perhaps this has soured some of the readers towards Harry's choice itself, however, I still look at the choice, and the reasons for it, as, if not completely separate, at least somewhat *apart* from the end result. 2. Dumbledore wouldn't manipulate people to deliberately bring back Voldemort. This one kind of fuzzes the line with meta-thinking, depending on the source of the objection. On the one hand, if you say that JKR wouldn't do that because she's set up Ddore as the epitome of good; then that *is* meta-thinking, because you're pushing him as a puppet to JKR again, and denying him RL motivations. On the other hand, if you say that Ddore wouldn't do such a thing because Ddore has been around 150 years, runs a school for children, has turned down an opportunity to be in politics, is shown to be fairly liberal in his views, and it just seems to be against his character; then that is *not* meta-thinking, but analysis. It's also something I'm not really going to answer because this post is long enough just disputing the meta-thinking arguments, and the MDDT can handle it (and has handled it in the past). To return to JKR and Ddore as the epitome of goodness, I don't know if it's even possible to reach anything besides an "agree to disagree," simply because this really depends on your world view. Myself, I'm Christian and believe God has a "Plan" that is largely based on the fact that He knows each of us well enough to know what our choices would be in each particular situation that we might find ourselves in, and has simply made it so our choices have the best possible outcome. To say much more would be getting into unnecessary theological explanations, so I'll simply say that having a *good* Dumbledore who does his best to get people to make the choices he wants them to make, fits quite easily into my world view. I think the morality of said choices and the comparison to "Decent people are so easy to manipulate, Potter" can be made by the MDDT. (Read: I'm backing off this one before I get sucked into it ;-)) 3. This is a children's book, and having MD Dumbledore is too complicated and serious for it. This is obviously meta-thinking, because Ddore, Voldemort & Co. obviously don't know that they're in a children's book and should keep their actions appropriate for a 9-12 age range ;-) I also disagree with it because JKR has said she isn't going to tone it down for younger readers, didn't have a target audience in mind while plotting the series, and is writing a book that she feels *she* would enjoy. There have been several debates in the past about whether HP is a "children's series" and I'm one of those who feel that the target audience of the book was decided by the publisher in response to PS/SS. Also, for those of you who have written out there, I also find it hard to imagine ignoring a plot line - particularly one as intricately laid into the framework of the series as MAGIC DISHWASHER is making out to be - simply because the series was classified as 9- 12 appropriate. Make it more vague and less explicit, maybe (although, once again, JKR said she wasn't toning it down), but I have a hard time fathoming JKR throwing it away all together if she *is* using it. 4. This is called the *Harry Potter* series, and you're turning it into a massive war with Dumbledore and Voldemort as the key players. Once again meta-thinking, because Ddore and LV don't know they're in a series called Harry Potter, and should therefore plan all actions accordingly around said person ;-) I also don't think the MDDT expects to suddenly get the series from Ddore's PoV, as he plans his next big offensive. I don't recall anyone yelling about the climax in PoA largely being what happened between Sirius, Peter, Remus, and the Potters, with Harry barely mentioned at all. Why? Because it's *backstory.* *We* know Harry is going to be the key player, but I'm rather hoping Ddore and LV don't. And I see no problem with them including plans that exclude Harry, because I tend to find the idea that they're completely hanging on a 14-15 year old kinda unappealing. I don't particularly like the idea that Dumbledore and Voldemort are sitting there, cooling their heels, while they wait on Harry. As much as I like Harry, having the *sole* attention fixed on him strikes me as not only unrealistic, but quite repellent. Well, this is the end of my post, and I hope I've managed to at least *somewhat* make the MD/meta-thinking stance clear. Becky (Who hopes she hasn't made any embarrassing canonical errors like the last time she posted) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Dec 7 19:38:49 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:38:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Battle Chess (was: Re: the Mirror of Erised/potion test) In-Reply-To: <004901c29cda$de997e00$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> References: <004901c29cda$de997e00$18fea8c0@WorkGroup> Message-ID: <16664812207.20021207113849@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47903 Thursday, December 5, 2002, 7:52:16 PM, Robert Gonzalez wrote: RG> Battle Chess still exists and it's available for free. RG> http://www.chesscentral.com/chess_download/battle_chess.htm What I'd really like to see is a chess set that's modelled after HP chars themselves -- Dumbledore as the white king, Harry as a bishop on brooomstick, etc. -- Dave From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Dec 7 19:39:13 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:39:13 -0000 Subject: Nimbus - 2003: Deadlines fast approaching Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47904 Hi everyone -- This is being sent as a special announcement to all HP4GU members. As many of you know, HP4GU is the primary promoter group for Nimbus - 2003: A Harry Potter Symposium, to be held July 17-20, 2003 in Orlando, FL. For all the information about Nimbus, take a look at the website (www.hp2003.org). We wanted to remind everyone that some Nimbus-related deadlines are fast approaching. First, if you are interested in leading or participating in a presentation, panel discussion, roundtable or workshop at Nimbus, the deadline for proposal submissions is January 15, 2003. We are very interested in receiving proposals from fans, particularly for "fandom culture" topics such as fanfiction, fan art, website design & administration, shipping, etc. Please take a look at our FAQ for submitting proposals to Nimbus -- http://www.hp2003.org/cfp/cfpfaq2.html We've defined terms and given suggestions in the above document for how you can link up with other interested fans to submit a proposal relating to one of your favorite topics. If you have a question that's not covered in the FAQ though, we do give an email address where you can contact members of the Nimbus staff. For some suggested topics to help get you started, take a look at the Call for Participation: http://www.hp2003.org/cfp/index.html Second, registration fees for Nimbus will increase starting January 16, 2003 (increasing about every 2 months thereafter). If you want to get the lowest registration fee for Nimbus ($99.75 USD), register on or before January 15th! Again -- JANUARY 15, 2003 is the deadline for submitting a proposal and the last day to register at the lowest early-bird registration fee! Hope to see you at Nimbus! Penny Co-Chair, Programming Nimbus - 2003: A Harry Potter Symposium From lucia at weirdness.org Sat Dec 7 20:40:15 2002 From: lucia at weirdness.org (loa2012 ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:40:15 -0000 Subject: Moody/Crouch - whose personality is it? (and the Map) In-Reply-To: <157.187a7672.2b22209e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47905 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Audra1976 at a... wrote: (snip) > Harry didn't notice that Crouch and Moody were in Moody's office together so > often before that because Harry didn't have any reason to keep looking at > Moody's office. He only used the map when he was sneaking around, looking at > the spot where he was, and making sure nobody was coming around that area, > mostly looking out for Filch and Mrs. Norris. Everyone's points about the map were well taken. I think if *I* had such a map at that school that I'd be taking a peek at it more often just to see what was up and who was where. Hey, Harry could've used it to locate where Cho Chang was more often and if she were alone so that he could arrange to "bump" into her :) GalacticLu From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 21:18:49 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 21:18:49 -0000 Subject: SHIP: re: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <20021207184604.83865.qmail@web80314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heidi tandy wrote: > In other words, if he's in love with her in Book 4, > she's the wrong person for him. If he's not in love > with her (either because he's in love with Fleur, or > for any other reason) then they did not have the fight > *because* they are in love with each other. > > One cannot make both arguments if one takes JKR's > interviews as canon or canon-indicative (although, of > course, there are those on this list who don't take > her statements as anything of the sort, and they can > totally disregard any arguments about people falling Why not? If Ron fell for Fleur AND Hermione during book 4, Rowling's statement is still valid -- unless she ALSO said that they WOULDN'T notice the "right" person as well. -CK From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 21:20:36 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 21:20:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Feeding Coney and MD letters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47907 >From the back porch, Melody and Pip watched the large form of the wolf disappear in the horizon. Coney hopped up beside them and tilted her head staring at the horizon too. Melody looked down and laughed. "Look - Coney misses Grey already." Pip looked down at the bunny. "You know I bet this thing is hungry. That is why it is biting everyone. I mean, a biting bunny is all well and good, but it could scare away everyone from coming to visit the safe house." Pip scooped up Coney and turned to enter the house again. "God forbid that," Melody commented with a hint of sarcasm and followed Pip and Coney back into the kitchen. "Sneaky, what do we have in the way of food for a bunny?" Pip asked placing Coney on the floor and going to prepare herself a cup of tea. Melody filled a bowl of water for the rabbit and placed it on the floor next to the cabinet. Sneaky was digging through the vegetable drawer and tossed out the expected carrots, lettuce, and a cluster of radishes onto the counter. Melody grabbed the carrot and appraised it condition. The rabbit, though, seemed to find it quite perfect. She jumped full force into the air, locked her jaws down on the carrot, flipped over, and landed back on her feet chomping away at the carrot noisily. "Wow! *That* was cool," Pip commented from the teakettle. Sneaky, though, was quite scared by the feat and was currently hiding on top of the refrigerator barely peeping out over the edge. "Mistress Pip, Miss Melody, that thing is possessed," she said cowering behind the cereal boxes. Melody looked up at the house elf and smiled. "Ah, Sneaky. It is just hungry. See," Melody said while tossing a radish into the air causing Coney to deftly catch it mid flight and land with grace. "It's a circus bunny." "Does it - eat meat?" Sneaky asked not convinced of Coney's innocence. "Hmmm...good question Sneaky," Melody said crossing to the fridge and taking out a t-bone steak. "Grey won't be needing this for a while. Can't let it spoil, now can we?" Coney stopped chewing on the radish and looked up at the steak with deep penetration. "Um, Melody. You might want to let that steak ease onto the floor," Pip suggested backing away from the bunny. Melody locked eyes with the bunny, put the steak on a plate, and lowered the plate slowly to the ground. The moment she let go of the plate, Coney pounced on the meat and devoured it bone and all. This time both Melody and Pip jumped and joined Sneaky on the kitchen counter causing Pip to spill her tea on the floor. "What sort of rabbit does *that*?" Pip asked not sure if having Coney in the house was a good idea. "A meta-thinking bunny," Melody said transfixed by the bunny. "This bunny devoured every thing [i.e. definitions] we put in front of it with more fierceness than normal. Cool." "Cool indeed," Sneaky squeaked now from further back on top of the fridge. Coney hiccupped and the t-bone of the steak projected out from her mouth and hit the magical dishwasher. If Melody wasn't mistaken the bunny even smiled afterwards. "So what are we going to do Mel?" Pip asked. "We can't have a bunny that eats everything in this house including the guests." "True," Melody nodded. "Seems we need to range in Coney somehow. Seems some people on the site would be scared of Coney. Maybe if we can wean them on a new word we can keep Coney around for us, and they can be happy with their own pet." "I think this metaphor is getting a bit tiring Mel," Pip said lowering her feet back onto the floor, refilling her teacup, and crossing over to the table. "Ok, ok. I just wanted to play with it a while," Melody said walking over to join Pip. "Coney can be just a guard bunny then. And a parlor trick for guests. I'll train her to not bit guests...well except on command. Can't help it the bunny is a bit protective after all." she added with a twinkle in her eye. "Good, good. So what has been the discussion while I have been away these past few days?" Pip asked leaning back in her chair. "Same as always. What is meta-thinking and why is it that we don't accept those types of critiques?" Melody explained. "Oh and happy your trip went well Pip. Happy you are back." "Thank you," smiled Pip. "All went well. So did we give our normal response to such inquiries?" "Yes, yes, but it seemed to confuses more than help. Frankly Pip, I don't know how else to explain it all," Melody said. "What can we do about this meta-thinking problem? Seems if we started it then we should help end the suffering caused by it." "Well, what is their questions now?" asked Pip. "Someone suggested we change the name to pure Greek form," Melody offered. "Yeah, but there are at least four different Greek words for the verb 'think'. That could be more confusing. Besides the problem is not in the word 'think'." Pip said taking a sip from her teacup. "The problem is in how encompassing is the ideas of outside the text and inside the text," Melody said gravely. Sneaky moved from above the refrigerator and peeked out at the floor. "Is it safe?" she squeaked. "Yes, of course it is Sneaky," Pip called. "Don't be afraid of Coney. She wouldn't bit you." "You can't promise that Mistress Pip," Sneaky said crawling down to the counter. Melody looked over to the house elf and promised, "Sneaky, if that bunny bits you, I can assure you it will not bit you again." Sneaky looked gravely at the two women and lowered herself onto the floor against her better judgment. Coney watched the little house elf with great interest and made a hop towards her when Sneaky set both feet onto the floor causing Sneaky to jump back on the counter in hast. It looked like Coney was laughing again. "Coney, stop *that*. Don't tease Sneaky like that," Melody chastised the bunny while jumped up from the table to go and pick up the rabbit. "Sorry Sneaky. This bunny is a handful." Sneaky gave Coney an evil look as she jumped off the counter and ran off to the next room. "Gee, I hope Sneaky will forgive me for bringing Coney here," Melody said a little worried. "Give her time. She'll see Coney is harmless to us. Hey, did you hear that Cindy came by earlier today?" Pip asked from over at the table as Melody went to rejoin her. "No," Melody said smiling. "What did she say *this* time?" "Seems she finally figured out she is a meta-thinker. Quite honored to be so it seems to." Pip said. "She came by to say just that?" Melody asked. "No, she went on and on about something, but she did not make much sense," Pip explained grinning. "But Cindy was so proud of herself, that I could not try to fix her logic." Melody nodded, "Well at least *someone* has come out happy in the midst of all this discussion. Glad it could be Cindy. Oh, and we got a lovely letter from Becky today," Melody said remembering the mail in her pocket. "Seems we have a supporter in her. You should read it Pip," Melody smiled passing the letter to Pip. "Yeah, it seems we have many closet supports of MD lately coming out of the woodworks. See, we are not alone like you thought," Pip smiled while unfolding the letter. "I like the Becky's point #2. The one about Dumbledore's manipulation. I do think the problem mostly has revolves around the listee's 'own view of the world' as she said. And I am glad we are making some sense," Melody said while petting Coney who seems quite content. "Yes, very nice," Pip smiled finishing the letter and putting it back in the envelope. "That is very encouraging." "Yeah, David too sent a nice letter but had a question to pose," Melody said pulling out another letter. "How much mail did we get today?" Pip asked taking the next letter. "Oh, just the normal amount, but I wanted to brings these to you in person," Melody said. "Now he asked about the limitations for the reader in analyzing book scenarios on how the reader can read emotions that are not written into the text. He related this to the GG when we say Voldemort is lying." Pip read the letter and sat back in her chair again placing the letter on the table. "What would you say?" she asked. "Well I would say that many times, things are *meant* to stay cloaked from the reader's knowledge, so that we don't see it coming. It is an author's choice. A choice that can be really just as deceiving as giving a character's reactions. After all, hasn't this site turned over Dumbledore's gleam from all angles without much appeasement? JKR gave the reaction there, and we still have no satisfaction. So, if she decided to show Harry's view of Voldemort's reactions to his words, what would change really in our debates? Harry's observational skills are questioned by us since it is his skills that are so faulty in the books. Look how many times he blames Snape when he is actually innocent. And besides, just because Harry does not observe a reaction, it does not mean it isn't there or we are supposed to *not* think more of it." "You read this letter a lot, didn't you?" Pip asked smiling. "It took me a bit to fully understand what David was getting at, I must confess. I was not sure if he was asking us to answer his question or asking our dissenters to answer," Melody explained. "So, that is all then?" Pip asked starting to rise from her chair. "Yeah, pretty much," Melody nodded shifting the bunny in her lap. "You off for a bit?" "Just to my study as usual," Pip said walking toward the paneled room. "If anything else comes up, just knock." "Ok." Melody said cheerfully. "Think I'll take Coney outside and teach her what she should and should not bit." Pip turned around. "And what will determine that?" "Oh," Melody said behind a huge grin, "I bet you can guess." Melody who started writing this thing this morning but had to keep adding and cutting bits as people posted. From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 21:26:04 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 21:26:04 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <20021207185651.24648.qmail@web80311.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47908 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, heidi tandy wrote: > How do you know that JKR isn't trying to show > parallels between Snape and Draco, as she's clearly > Why is it impossible to think that she might be > showing something similar with Draco? Oh, I think she's showing parallels between Snape and Draco. Just as I believe Voldemort and Dumbledore represent what Harry might be like, depending on his choices, I think Snape and Lucius serve the same thematic/foreshadow-y purpose for Draco. However, also note that Snape is single and Lucius does not seem like the type of fellow to make Ginny get cow-eyed, at least from what we know of her now. ;) I think the point was that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Draco will suddenly see the error of his ways and be all nicey to the Gryffindor bunch. -CK From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Dec 7 21:29:37 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:29:37 -0500 Subject: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47909 I wanted to weigh in on the meta-thinking issue myself. I know this post will overlap much of the discussion that has already taken place, but I did have some specific questions and comments to address to Pip (and anyone else who cares to join in). This latest discussion came up when Eloise asked Pip why she felt JKR's word could invalidate the Magic Dishwasher theory, and how come this wouldn't constitute meta-thinking -- thinking about the books from outside the internal world of the characters. Pip replied: > My view is that any factual detail about the internal world of a > book or series of books that can be definitely attributed to the > author is canonical. Unfortunately, this discussion got a little bogged down in the question of what constitutes canon. I think this sidetracked it a lot, since the canon/ non-canon issue is considerably different from the meta- thinking/non-meta-thinking issue. Canon, for instance, takes into account "meta" issues such as theme, tone, metaphor, allegory, plot constructions, the name of the books, etc.; MD is not based on any of these. Canon, however, is typically not considered to include the authors word in interview, letters, notes, etc. So, I ask Pip the same question that Eloise did, but I'm phrasing it differently: MD, as I understand it, is based on the following, helpfully supplied in Eileen's latest post: > Pip -post#47047 > >DISHWASHER is based on > >a 'within the book' viewpoint, where the books and characters are > >treated as if they are real events, real characters, and real > >motivations. So my question is, if JKR addresses an issue relevant to the point of view of the characters, then this is fair game for your analysis. For instance, if JKR says that Dumbledore is 150 years old, this is fair (i.e. relevant to the internal perspective) since *Dumbledore knows he is 150 years old.* However, if JKR says that Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness, this is irrelevant to MD's internal perspective because it treats Dumbledore as a character -- Dumbledore the person, taken internally, has no idea he's supposed to be the epitome of anything. (Leaving aside how we interpret "epitome of goodness.") Is this correct, Pip, or does JKR's word simply, in your opinion, trump all our theories? :-) Regarding "meta-thinking." I do regret that this term has come into existence on the list, since it confuses more than it clarifies, and it has the unfortunate effect of leading people to believe that it's a term from literary theory, which is most definitely is not. It is, in this context, a homegrown HPfGU term. More recently, Pip has cited the Stanislavskian method in defense of non-meta-thinking: > In a Stanislavskian approach, you would treat the characters as if > they were real people, with real motivations, in a real world. And > you would try and work out whether they *are* always saying exactly > what they mean, or if there is something else going on underneath. Ideally, it would have been great if this method had been brought up early on in the Magic Dishwasher discussion. That way we could use it instead of something awkward and confusing like "non-meta-thinking." For instance, if someone said "I think Snape was knocked out in the Shrieking Shack for all the discussion of Peter because JKR needed it that way for a plot convention," then the MDDT could reply: "I prefer to think of Snape and the other characters as real people, with real motivations, not the puppets of plot," etc. and cite the Stanislavskian method as an accepted, internally coherent means of interpreting characters. This would have the advantage of being clearer to newbies and infrequent list-followers, who would either recognize this term from its use in acting schools, or be able to look it up independently. This would also have the advantage of admitting that MD's "non-meta-thinking" school of interpretation is but one method among many. It is no more scientific, conservative or accurate than any other method, but it is internally consistent and worthy of consideration. Literature is a slippery, ever-shifting entity; there is no sure-fire means of interpretation as much as many of us would be tempted to have one. I personally must agree with Charis Julia, Clickety, Eileen, Eloise, and others who feel (in essence) that a variety of methodological approaches can be applied to a given theory and there is no particular value to adhering strictly to one, unless you are simply doing it as an intellectual exercise, premise for an AU fanfic, or fun topic of conversation. In order for a theory to be valid, IMO, it must simultaneously make sense both internally and externally, even if the human mind (waves at Charis Julia) is only capable of focusing on one at once. I also agree that MD can be frustrating for those of us who disagree with it because of the prohibition on arguing from our chosen methodology. Still, I've never *demonized* someone over it. :-) But Theory Bay has produced a variety of wild and subversive theories, and no one else yet has declared a method of interpretation "unfair" to apply to a theory of their own. Lastly, a note on authorial intent: this is aimed playfully at Shane. I was under the impression that authorial intent went the way of the dodo back when the New Critics declared the Intentional Fallacy to be erroneous, back in the 1930's, and long before Barthes wrote in the 50's and beyond. :-) In any case, the author has been dead for a long time. ~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SarahMarv3 at aol.com Sat Dec 7 16:08:23 2002 From: SarahMarv3 at aol.com (SarahMarv3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 11:08:23 -0500 Subject: Why Hermione wanted to make the Polyjuice Was:Hermione and the Polyjuice Potion Message-ID: <7BC5D103.13048D68.0C90B6F8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47910 In a message dated 12/7/2002 1:46:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > I've always wondered why Hermione was so dead set on making > the potion. > > Harry and Ron would have been perfectly willing to let that > plan drop, but she wanted to make this potion very, very > much. > > Almost as if it was a personal thing, wanting to prove she > can, even though it's supposed to be a most complicated > brew. I think that Hermione was so dead-set on making the potion because she felt the most threatened. From what we can tell, she is the only student who was openly called a "mudblood" in front of her peers that year (based on everybody's shock upon hearing Malfoy use the word.) If the heir *was* Malfoy, Hermione knew that he would be sending the monster after her soon. If she could determine that Malfoy was *not* the heir, she would be able to relax a little; she would not feel like the primary target! I don't think that the brewing of the Polyjuice Potion had anything to do with Hermione "showing off!" I think that it was purely out of terror; the only way that Hermione would openly break the rules *and* persuade others to do the same was if she was truly afraid for her life. By the way, this is my first post, and I want to say hello! *Sarah =) From sholden at flash.net Sat Dec 7 18:37:04 2002 From: sholden at flash.net (SHolden) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 12:37:04 -0600 Subject: SHIP Couples in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <000801c29e1f$a45f02a0$70b45a42@falcon> No: HPFGUIDX 47911 Theresnothingtoit said: Ron: Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to be together. But the more I look at it the more and more cliche it looks. Yes they would make an adoreable couple, yes it is quite clear that Ron fancys the pants off Hermione but IIRC JKR say that each of the main characters would fall for Mr/Miss Wrong. I believe that Hermione is Rons Miss Wrong. I think it would be better if he ended up with someone else, someone already foreshadowed in the books. What was that? Padma you say? Goodness no, Rons going to swallow his pride, grow up and ask Eliose Midgen to go on a date. What gets me with this is that we ALL completely ignore how early it was for JKR to reveal this. Yes, I'm an H/Hr, but with JKR style of writing. Her obvious not meaning the obvious, I can see this R/Hr as misdirection. JKR has proven time & time again that she will lead you down one path them hit you with something you least expected. She revealed this in Book 4, in the middle of the series! How often has JKR revealed a clue and shown it to be false in the end. She's done it with Snape, Sirius, Moody, and plenty others. If she does it in the main plot, she can certainly do it in the sub plot. I do see some slight support of R/Hr, but I see more for H/Hr. With Ginny, I see a lot of different things. We saw more of her in CoS & we will see more of her in OotP. Why do I get the feeling that Ginny will be evil in OotP???? She was possessed (?) by Tom Riddle. That's got to leave some sort of affect on the poor girl. --S Holden [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Dec 7 22:06:43 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:06:43 -0500 Subject: A plot parallel: Playing dirty Message-ID: <2B5C4EA6-0A30-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47912 I've been pondering the issue of certain HP characters with a fondness for applying rules to other people but deftly avoiding them personally. Consider the following, and let me know what you think: Let's say that, in the course of your daily affairs, you realize that someone you know constitutes a grave danger in their professional capacity. They are capable of causing grievous and irreparable damage within their current job. You have more than enough proof of this, since you have witnessed with your own eyes an example of this person being deceitful, betraying a trust and even going on a rampage. You have no doubt in your mind that this is the case. So what do you do? Do you go to someone in a position in authority? Say, that person's employer, a ministry official, or your trusted mentor, and say "This person *needs to be sacked.* They are *dangerous.*" Or do you find some vicious little way of taking matters into your own hands, some nasty means of knocking them out of commission so that they cannot constitute a danger anymore? Do you play dirty? Of course I'm talking about -- Hermione and Skeeter. OK, Snape and Lupin too. But is has struck me that these two events are strangely similar, and I don't recall any discussion of their parallels. Of course Rita Skeeter *is* a deceitful and hurtful character whom nobody likes, and Hermione was accurate in her assessment of her. Lupin, OTOH, is basically a great guy, and Snape was deeply mistaken about him at the end of PoA. But in Snape's defense, he did go to Dumbledore, apparently on several occasions, and try to demand Lupin's dismissal before doing anything about it himself. Hermione, however, didn't seem to consult anyone before imprisoning and blackmailing Rita Skeeter, and this has struck me as a very reckless decision which I'm worried will come back to haunt her. Yes, blackmailing. Am I wrong, or is that exactly what Hermione does by telling Rita she'll narc her out to the Ministry if she publishes another article within a year? "Rita Skeeter isn't going to be writing anything at all for a while. Not unless she wants me to spill the beans on her." Isn't this worrisome, since a pair as boisterously reckless as *Fred and George* worry about using blackmail? Didn't the subplot of Fred, George and Ludo Bagman indicate that blackmail in the Potterverse is wrong from many people's point of view? "- that's blackmail, that is, we could get into a lot of trouble for that-" "- we've tried being polite; it's time to play dirty, like him. He wouldn' t like the Ministry of Magic knowing what he did -" "I'm telling you, if you put that in writing, it's blackmail!" Well, maybe Hermione hasn't put anything in writing, but I'd say it's close enough. So I ask, do you agree that Hermione's treatment of Skeeter is oddly similar to Snape's treatment of Lupin? Are their more contrasts that I'm forgetting? Does the twin's temptation to blackmail Bagman factor into this theme? How does it relate to the overall motif of Harry operating on his own for 'good' reasons? And what constitutes 'playing dirty' in the Potterverse? ~Porphyria From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Dec 7 23:26:51 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 18:26:51 -0500 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women Message-ID: <5D6E826C-0A3B-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47913 Long ago, back on 10/3 (#44915), GulPlum noted that a preponderance of Snape's (and Sirius's and Lupin's) fans were female. He wondered "whether it's because men generally seem not to go beyond the obvious, the broad strokes, while women seem to be more interested in hints and background characters?" Then he wondered " Or are women principally going for characters who might conform to or fulfill their sexual fantasies?" He remarked: > I'm honestly curious about what people's views on the above are and why > (beyond the usual literary reasons) we feel attracted to the characters > who appeal to us. I wanted to answer this long ago but didn't have time, and since today it came up in an offlist discussion and I *do* have a bit of time, I thought I'd answer it now. I shall necessarily generalize about gender roles from my own perspective in the paragraphs below; if you disagree with me please argue your own view but please don't take offense where there is none intended. For starters, my whole reply is predicated on the belief that, very often, people prefer characters with whom they identify. This can be positive or negative; we like characters who embody the characteristics we wish to have, and we feel deep empathy for characters who embody our own faults. Well, I'm sure some people *hate* characters who embody their own faults, but I for one love them quite pathetically, and I know I'm not alone. I would also like to add, re GulPlum's question about sexual fantasies, that infatuation with literary characters has *nothing to do* with sexual attraction in its simplest sense. These characters have no physical presence; they do not infect us with their pheromones or put the moves on us. They are only as attractive as we imagine them. Our impression of them is rooted purely in language, which means it is symbolic and analyzable. Otherwise, we'd all have hopeless crushes on Gilderoy Lockhart, which does not seem to be the case. :-) Snape, in particular, *is supposed to be ugly, * so there must be something *else* going on with his legion of female crushers for them to feel as they do. The following is only one theory among many for Snape's appeal, but I think it's worth giving a shot: Snape is the cast-off animus of an individual who has been socialized as female. OK, plain English: Snape appeals to some women because he is exactly what a woman cannot be if she is to be recognized as "feminine" in our society. Let's consider Snape's depiction in the books. We know from some offhand remarks that Snape is considered brilliant in his field: Lupin's explanation of how difficult Wolfsbane Potion is to brew, Sirius's admission that Snape knew more curses as a child, etc. We also get the impression he's brilliant from his poetic, mannered speech, his pride in his craft and, via Real Life contamination, he reminds us of that type of professor who would much rather be researching than teaching. So, he strikes me as being the Potterverse equivalent of a brilliant scientist. However, what is is we typically see Snape doing? He gets to teach 11 year olds Boil-Curing Potion *over and over and over.* He has to herd them from class to class when there is some danger in the castle. He has to keep them in line and break up fights. He has to babysit. He has to make sure they get medical treatment when they injure themselves, and protect them from their own recklessness. And, in what I think is one of the series' moments of pure comic genius, Snape has to play hyper-conscientious nursemaid to Lupin, someone he'd just as soon poison. Now, being a grade school teacher, a caretaker and a nurse are all noble professions, but do they suit Snape's personality? No, they require patience, compassion, empathy and affection, all qualities he notably lacks. He is deeply unsuited for his job. Snape appears to despise little children and resents being stuck 'taking care of' people who need extra attention like Lupin, Harry or Neville. He doesn't seem to have a nurturing bone in his body. But he is protective and dutiful, and his job duties wrench appropriate behavior out of his as best as he can manage (which often isn't very well). So my argument states that Snape appeals to *some* women who feel frustrated that society, their families, or life in general obliges them into a caretaker role when they privately feel that they are better suited for more intellectual work. Some of these women might reject caretaker roles for themselves, and others might be *extremely dutiful* mothers, teachers and nurses who simply feel the pressure to be compassionate and tender-hearted all the time. It's a heavy burden for anyone not 100% sweetness and light in the first place. But what if women actually acted like Snape! It's hardly an option for any of us who care about what our loved ones think of us. (If only the world were as accepting as Dumbledore! ) So Snape is deliciously enjoyable because, as a literary character, he can get away with all the nastiness he wants and we can enjoy it vicariously without actually hurting anyone in the Real World. So I think the reason that the vast majority of Snape's admirers are female is that he represents the vindictive, resentful flipside of the "female" role that is foreclosed to real women who feel obliged to appear "feminine" by typical cultural standards. I think this explains why some of Snape's fans are infatuated straight women, but also why some of his fans are lesbians. I also think this explains why some female readers *despise* Snape, because he constitutes an absolute scandal for someone entrusted with the role of rearing young people. (It's not a subject women typically feel neutral about.) And lastly, I think this explains why so few (to my knowledge) of Snape's fans are gay men, because (I imagine) they have a whole ton of other gender-role obligations to contend with, which have nothing to do with Snape's character. Same probably goes for straight men. :-) Again, that's only one theory among many possible for why people like his character, and it need not apply to absolutely everyone. Let me know what you think. ~Porphyria From dicentra at xmission.com Sat Dec 7 23:53:10 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63 ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 23:53:10 -0000 Subject: A new term for metathinking? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria wrote: > Regarding "meta-thinking." I do regret that this term has come into > existence on the list, since it confuses more than it clarifies, and it > has the unfortunate effect of leading people to believe that it's a term > from literary theory, which is most definitely is not. It is, in this > context, a homegrown HPfGU term. Can we come up with a better term, then? It seems to me that "metathinking" would more appropriately describe what we do when we analyze the different approaches to the Potterverse (though "meta-analysis" might be more precise). I am bothered by the "meta-" prefix, as many are, because it suggests "going outside of" or beyond something. If I understand the dichotomy correctly, we've got those who analyze the Potterverse as a literary artifact and those who set aside the literary nature of the Potterverse. Because the Potterverse is, indisputably, a literary construct, those who approach it thus are not going outside of anything: there's nothing "meta" about it. Those who set aside the literary character of the Potterverse are the ones who are playing by a specialized set of rules: their method should therefore get the special term. (Ironically, the "meta-" prefix applies to the literary approach *only* if you've situated yourself within the non-literary paradigm to begin with; I guess it makes sense that for the MDDT, the literary approach *is* "metathinking.") Hmmm. If we consult Elkins's seminal text on approaches to texts, 39196 (and which of Elkins's posts isn't seminal?), she calls the non-literary approach the "fan" or "fannish" approach. (And as we are doing now, she laments the lack of a better term.) Other terms that come to mind are "historical" or "literal," but these terms are unsatisfactory because they already name an approach, neither of which is the non-literary approach. If we want to coin a term for HPfGU, we could call it the "safehouse" approach, and create "safehousing" as a neologism, but if we want something we can use in any fandom, we might want to use "hermetic," because the approach is impermeable to all literary considerations. At any rate, this safehouse/hermetic/fannish approach is used by more than MD, to be sure. The recent thread discussing whether Sirius had a genuine case of PSTD is not a literary approach. The timelines in the Lexicon posit the Potterverse as "real," and most of our FLINTs disregard the vagaries of writing and editing as an explanation for the inconsistencies. Porphyria continues: > More recently, Pip has cited the Stanislavskian method in defense of > non-meta-thinking: Yes, I'd say that the Stanislavskian method is a valid analogy, but try typing Stanislavskian quickly and accurately. I can't. :D > I also agree that MD can be frustrating for those of us who disagree > with it because of the prohibition on arguing from our chosen methodology. I don't know. If MD posits a non-literary Potterverse, you can certainly say "I don't think MD is accurate because of XXX literary consideration," but you're criticizing MD based on a premise it doesn't accept. That's like saying that something in RL will or will not happen based on literary convention, e.g., "yes, you're stranded in a snowstorm, but don't worry: your worst enemy will save you right before you freeze to death and you'll become the best of friends." True, such a thing *could* happen in RL, but it's not more likely to happen because that's how it often happens in stories. As someone once said, "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to be plausible, a restraint truth does not have" (or words to that effect). > Still, I've never *demonized* someone over it. :-) But Theory Bay has > produced a variety of wild and subversive theories, and no one else yet > has declared a method of interpretation "unfair" to apply to a theory of > their own. That's because in TBAY people are playing by the same set of rules. It would not be difficult to go into TBAY and be the ultimate wet blanket, saying that SECOND FLAMINGO and TOADKEEPER and the TEWWWW EWWWW Trilogy are WAY too speculative and ridiculous and not worth consideration on a list of this caliber and besides, this business about romping around in a fictional space that has Nothing To Do With The Potterverse is childish and off-topic. There are those who feel that way about TBAY, but they're too sporting to rain on our picnic (the prefix allows them to skip the nonsense and be content). Oh, and by the way, MAGIC DISHWASHER is now in Hypothetic Alley, now found at its new location (Stoned!Harry is almost there, too!): http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html Porphyria: > a variety of methodological approaches > can be applied to a given theory and there is no particular value to > adhering strictly to one, unless you are simply doing it as an > intellectual exercise, premise for an AU fanfic, or fun topic of > conversation. I sympathize with the MDDT. They're inhabiting the particular theoretical space that MD posits and prefer to argue the merits of the theory from within the confines of that non-literary space. For fun, and as an intellectual exercise, and all that stuff. So yeah, if you counter a hermetic argument with a literary argument, you aren't playing by their rules, and there's no reason why they should give weight to your argument in the context of that particular discussion. That's frustrating to some, but either you play their game or you start your own. If you want to analyze MD from a literary standpoint, go ahead--then the MDDT's hermetic approach will be invalid on that thread. There's plenty of room on HPfGU for both approaches. Yahoomort hasn't set a limit on how many threads we can start. Yet. :D Poyrphyria: > In order for a theory to be valid, IMO, it must > simultaneously make sense both internally and externally, even if the > human mind (waves at Charis Julia) is only capable of focusing on one at > once. I don't know if I'd limit the term "valid" that much, at least not as far as the list as a whole. If we're examining theories and trying to determine which one is "correct," that is, which one is successfully played out through Book 7, then perhaps "valid" should be thus delimited. OTOH, if "valid" simply means "an interesting reading that is loads of fun to play with," then a non-literary perspective such as MD certainly merits "valid." --Dicentra, preferring the more generic term "hermetic" to "safehouse," but only by a little From SusanXG at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 22:05:01 2002 From: SusanXG at hotmail.com (Susan XG) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:05:01 -0600 Subject: SHIP The "Something" between R/H (was Couples in the Potterverse) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47915 >>>>>Why not? If Ron fell for Fleur AND Hermione during book 4, Rowling's >>>>>statement is still valid -- unless she ALSO said that they WOULDN'T >>>>>notice the "right" person as well.<<<<< J.K. Rowling ALSO said that there was "something" going on between Ron and Hermione, only that Ron doesn't realize it yet. This makes me believe that Hermione realized her feelings for Ron prior to Book 4, and that when she realized Ron had no intention of asking her to the Yule Ball (other than as a last resort), that was why she accepted Viktor's invite. Viktor IS Hermione's wrong guy, because Ron hasn't realized it yet. Therefore, we might know he's head over heels, but RON doesn't know it yet. He thinks he's IN LOVE with half-veela Fleur, who is definitely the wrong girl for him because she represents the appeal to the male hormones. (And yes, I AM a rabid R/H shipper) ;o) Susan :o) _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From vaseemf at yahoo.com Sat Dec 7 23:10:00 2002 From: vaseemf at yahoo.com (vaseemf ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 23:10:00 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47916 --- Ali wrote: > I have trouble believing that Quidditch would actually > work. Hey, Im new and this is my first little contribution to this message board. I've been reading about the plausibily of Quidditch and I've decided that this game could not really work. The part that I find the most disturbing is the amount of points given to a team for cataching the snitch. --- bboy_mn wrote: > It's already been pointed out that it's possible to catch the > Snitch and lose the game, so the game isn't determined solely by > the Snitch. Although this rare occasion did occur during the Quidditch World Cup I wouldn't be suprised if this was a first in World Cup history. Also there were very special circumstances that produced this occasion. Ireland had *much* stronger Chasers that allowed Ireland to get 16 goals (I think) giving them 160 points. On top of that Bulgaria had a strong enough seeker to stall Ireland's seeker from catching the snitch for that long (using Wronski Feints). Also, I imagine that Krum is one of the few seekers that have so little faith in his team to get 2 goals in order for them to win. I think that JKR should have made the reward for catching the snitch at around 50 so that Chasers would have a more important role (to keep their team at the most 40 points behind the other team). Also, as a side note, shouldn't all the point sums be divided by ten? "vaseemf" From kmapes at uclink.berkeley.edu Sat Dec 7 23:15:41 2002 From: kmapes at uclink.berkeley.edu (ladygvorkosigan ) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 23:15:41 -0000 Subject: SHIP Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <000801c29e1f$a45f02a0$70b45a42@falcon> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47917 S Holden: > What gets me with this is that we ALL completely ignore how early it was for JKR to reveal this. Yes, I'm an H/Hr, but with JKR style of writing. Her obvious not meaning the obvious, I can see this R/Hr as misdirection. JKR has proven time & time again that she will lead you down one path them hit you with something you least expected. She revealed this in Book 4, in the middle of the series! How often has JKR revealed a clue and shown it to be false in the end. She's done it with Snape, Sirius, Moody, and plenty others. If she does it in the main plot, she can certainly do it in the sub plot. I do see some slight support of R/Hr, but I see more for H/Hr. Well, whether or not you think halfway through the series is "early" is entirely a matter of opinion. She's revealed a number of key things so far. We know that Harry's dad was an animagus, as were his three best friends. We know that Snape was once a Deatheater but betrayed them at great risk to himself. We know that Voldemort was once a student at Hogwarts named Tom Riddle. Was it too early to reveal this important information? Does this mean it's automatically going to come untrue in future books? Plus, I don't see any reason why Rowling needs to set romantic relationships up as a plot twist or mystery. The one mystery we've seen as far as interpersonal relationships go is Percy/Penelope, and honestly, we see so little of them that this doesn't strike me as a good model for the relationships of Harry and his best friends. Generally speaking, she seems to more enjoy focusing on the details of their relationships, not making them mysterious. We see Arthur and Molly Weasley bickering, we see Harry and Ron drooling over Cho and Fleur, and yes, we see Ron making an idiot of himself because he won't admit that he has a crush on Hermione. None of these things lend themselves well to surprise or hidden clues. They're in a different style. Finally, I think if she's going to develop a long lasting relationship between two of the main characters she darn well better start doing it early or we'll be left thinking "Huh? Harry's dating Neville? Where did THAT come from?" It takes time to establish things such as attraction and compatability in a manner that's both believable and still a subplot. > > With Ginny, I see a lot of different things. We saw more of her in CoS & we will see more of her in OotP. Why do I get the feeling that Ginny will be evil in OotP???? She was possessed (?) by Tom Riddle. That's got to leave some sort of affect on the poor girl. > > --S Holden > Actually, I think Rowling has gone out of her way to show Ginny as the type of person NOT likely to go evil. Her reaction to the dementors is second only to that of Harry's, and it seems unlikely that she would want to relive any of that by joining Voldemort deliberately. Furthermore, she keeps Hermione's secret about her Yule Ball date, and she passes up an opportunity to go with Harry to maintain her commitment to Neville. If she was going to turn evil in the next book, I'd want to see at least some sort of legitimate basis of manipulative or mean behavior in the previous ones. Katie From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sun Dec 8 00:22:29 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:22:29 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: <5D6E826C-0A3B-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47919 Porphyria wrote: "I would also like to add, re GulPlum's question about sexual fantasies, that infatuation with literary characters has *nothing to do* with sexual attraction in its simplest sense. These characters have no physical presence; they do not infect us with their pheromones or put the moves on us. They are only as attractive as we imagine them. Our impression of them is rooted purely in language, which means it is symbolic and analyzable." I disagree with this, because we can be affected by the way a certain character is described. Snape's voice is often described as "silky", he is always wearing black, sweeping in and out of rooms, talking in a "soft, dangerous" voice, and looking through his curtain of black, and sometimes greasy, hair. All these characteristics have a mysterious tone about them. While he isn't physically attractive, his mannerisms are somewhat seductive in that tall dark stranger sort of way. He also has a dangerous past. Women like bad boys. However, he is no longer (or some hope he isn't) bad. He has repented, and is now working on the side of good. He turned his back aganist Voldemort. That's bravery. Bravery, added to the characteristic of having a dangerous, somewhat mysterious past, is sexy. He's a man who won't run screaming the other way in the face of danger. And, the fact that we don't know anything about his past, other than the fact that he was a DE, makes him all the more attractive because we can fantasize about what makes him tick. "OK, plain English: Snape appeals to some women because he is exactly what a woman cannot be if she is to be recognized as "feminine" in our society. " These sort of women *sympathize* with Snape. I know I do. I hate kids. I would teach, but I don't have the patience for it. So, in short, I completely agree with your theory. The one thing that just bothers me about your theory is that it makes Snape sound a little feminine...well, indirectly feminine. But I really do like your theory. -Acire, who finds Sherlock Holmes (a mysogonist, for anyone who doesn't know) appealing in the same way she finds Snape appealing. From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sun Dec 8 00:27:46 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:27:46 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47920 All right, it's a well-known fact that wizards live longer than Muggles. However, here's a question: wouldn't the fact that wizards live longer than Muggles deter some wizards away from marrying a Muggle? You know right from the start that you're going to live longer than your spouse, and should you choose to tell your spouse, they know they will die before you. I know love is supposed to conquer all, but how would you like to go into a marriage knowing you'll have to live half of your life without your significant other? Another thing, too. Some of Hogwarts staff (well, DD and McGonagall, as far as we know) are, or almost are, older than then Muggles get. Would it be possible for one of them to have married a Muggle, and then widowed around 70? I'm mostly speaking about DD, because he seems more the type to marry a Muggle than McGonagall. -Acire, who has found a lot to talk about the past few days. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 01:02:46 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:02:46 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ats_fhc3 " wrote: >... ... ... > However, here's a question: wouldn't the fact that wizards > live longer than Muggles deter some wizards away from marrying a > Muggle? You know right from the start that you're going to live > longer than your spouse, and should you choose to tell your spouse, > they know they will die before you. > > ...edited... > > -Acire, who has found a lot to talk about the past few days. bboy_mn comments: "Love for a moment is better that nothing for a lifetime." Not sure who said that; I overheard it in a converstation. When you love someone, you love them, and in accepting that love, you accept all the potential heartache that comes with it. In the same sense, living your life mean accepting the possiblity of death. You don't know how long your spouse will live. You don't know how long your kids will life. You just love them as much as you can while they're here. If you are afraid to live or love because something might go wrong, you have lost the game of life before it even begins. So I think that wizards and Muggles in love would certainly give some consideration to the difference in lifespan, but in the end, love really would conquer all. RE: Wizard age vs muggle age: Dumbledore is about 150 but relative to a muggle he seems about mid-seventies; let's say 75. That would imply that wizards have double the life span of a muggle. While many (or at least several) humans live to be 110 to 115 or so, one could assume that there are a few wizards/witches over 200. Summary, I think the absolute lifespan potential of a witch/wizard is about 250 with many more reaching 200 than there are muggle reaching 100. Can I prove that? Nope, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Dec 8 01:41:08 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:41:08 -0600 Subject: ADMIN: Interpretive Methods: Tolerance for other viewpoints Message-ID: <114c01c29e5a$e17f5960$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 47922 Hi all -- There seems to have been some contention lately arising from differences in preferred interpretive method (that is, what is canonical, what approach is best for interpreting the text, and so forth) on the list. HPfGU is not affiliated with any particular school of literary criticism, nor will it ever be. When posting, please try to keep in mind that this list has a diverse membership of now over 5000 members. Just as we expect that our members show due consideration for social and cultural diversity when they post to the list, we must also insist that they show respect for diversity in critical method or school. As a part of our posting guidelines we urge people to take care to express their personal opinions as opinions, rather than as statements of fact. Phrases like "I think," "I prefer," and "in my opinion" can go a very long way towards reducing the chances of misunderstandings and hurt feelings on the list. We have the same expectation for members who are remarking on issues of literary criticism -- intolerance of different points of view really has no place here. When commenting on a method or critical school, please be aware of these guidelines and phrase your thoughts accordingly. Within the field of literary criticism, scholars may indeed label one another's analytic tools as "fallacies" all the time. However, we would like to keep HPfGU focused on friendly discussion and analysis of the Harry Potter books with due respect for *all* critical approaches. As we do not discriminate between critical approaches on the list as a whole, we would appreciate it if listmembers would not give the impression that certain critical approaches are unwelcome or forbidden on any specific topics or threads. If you believe someone's objection or canon point to be fallacious or unpersuasive, please try to keep our posting guidelines in mind when you express that belief. In many circumstances, it might be best to ignore an objection or statement altogether if you believe it to be based in fallacy. So, for example, "That is the Intentional Fallacy, which makes your argument non-canonical!" is not the best way to register an objection to someone else's citing an interview statement. For one thing, it can be taken as aggressive and accusatory. For another, it is presenting an opinion as if it were a fact: the Intentional Fallacy is actually only considered a "fallacy" within *some* schools of criticism, by no means all of them, and there are plenty of people who do believe authorial intent to be "canonical." Indeed, many of our members are quite partial to arguments based on what JKR has said in interviews and chats. A kinder, less contentious, and far more clear way to convey this meaning therefore might be: "I have no response to that objection, because I prefer not to take the author's claims about what she intended into account when interpreting what she actually wrote." Furthermore, we would urge everyone to take particular care to avoid phrasings which might give the misapprehension that they are conveying list policy, rather than personal preference. Comments about "cheating," "fair play," and "breaking the rules" can be very misleading to new members, as they give the impression that what is being discussed are rules of the list, rather than matters of personal preference. Finally, while some back and forth on personal preferences regarding canon analysis is fine -- and indeed often necessary to establish a shared understanding of the framework of the debate -- we would like to ask that exchanges which have become *solely* concerned with the respective virtues of critical schools, methods or techniques be taken over to OTC. Remember that our Content Guidelines require that posts to the main list make a point about the Harry Potter books themselves. Critical methodology is a fascinating topic, and we welcome discussion of it on the main list, so long as it is being discussed with some eye to its application to these *particular* books. Theory debates divorced from any discussion of the books themselves, on the other hand, would be best conducted on OTC. We would like to reiterate that HPfGU does not discriminate on the basis of critical school or method. Blanket statements of dismissal or attacks directed against interpretive schools are inappropriate, violate good netiquette and will be addressed off-list with the member. If anyone has any comments on this message, or on the issues relating to it, please write to the Moderators at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com rather than posting to the list. We'd also like to remind members that if they feel they are being treated unfairly or with disrespect on the list, they should alert us at the same address. Thanks, Penny for the Moderator Team From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 01:47:58 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:47:58 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47923 Acire wrote: >>However, here's a question: wouldn't the fact that wizards live >>longer than Muggles deter some wizards away from marrying a Muggle? >>You know right from the start that you're going to live longer than >>your spouse, and should you choose to tell your spouse, they know >>they will die before you. bboy_mn comments: > "Love for a moment is better that nothing for a lifetime." > When you love someone, you love them, and in accepting that love, > you accept all the potential heartache that comes with it. In the > same sense, living your life mean accepting the possiblity of death. Well the quote that comes to my mind is from Tennyson's "In Memorium": I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. So from that, I am split between the two of you. How can someone, who loves another so deeply, enter a marriage knowing there is a high possibility that they would outlive their spouse? Knowing that there is a higher possibility that they will live alone for most of their life? Well Acire, Love's not time's fool. True deep love does not care. Better to have spent what lifetime they have with each other than spend the time without. Of course, the idea of living alone can be rather depressing. Knowing what once was and is no longer. Seeing their face in the smoke from the cauldron. Going to visit the Mirror of Erised a bit too much. How is it that someone would place themselves in the possibility of being in that predicament? Seems imprudent and foolish. But, hey, what am I saying? This is love after all. It does not alter when alteration is found. When Mr. Wizard falls for Miss Muggle and falls *truly* in love, then there is little else in their mind than the fact that Mr. Wizard wants to spend whatever time he has with Miss Muggle. He wants to protect her, share with her, have kids...etc. etc. all the nice lovely things. So, why would the fact he would live longer than her bother him and stop him? I don't think it would if he did love her in that 'agape' kind of love, but...reality is still there. That is probably why Flamel shared his potion with his wife and seemingly *only* his wife. Some books and stories have been written about this in the realm of immortality. How can someone who is immortal let themselves fall in love knowing they definitely *will* out live their dear love? I guess that is what Acire is asking. Not why are they marrying Muggles, but why are they even allowing themselves to fall in love with them if there is that live span factor. A good part of their life will be lived without their chosen spouse. Seems that could be avoided by just avoiding Muggles and marrying in their "kind". But alas, the marriage of true minds admits no impediments. If Mr. Wizard truly loves Miss Muggle, then what is to stop them from marrying? Not a silly thing like magic. Have you seen a man in true love? They are intoxicating and driven almost. It is that tender hand wanting only his love's that is so *amazing*. In that love, age does not matter. So I think, love got in the way of prudence, and Mr. Wizard saw Miss Muggle, and it was Romeo and Juliet...just with a happier ending. Melody who would like to thank Shakespeare for letting her quote his works From porphyria at mindspring.com Sun Dec 8 01:48:14 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:48:14 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47924 I wrote: > ...infatuation with literary characters has *nothing to > do* with sexual attraction in its simplest sense. These characters > have no physical presence...They are only as attractive as we > imagine them. Our impression of them is rooted purely in language, > which means it is symbolic and analyzable. Acire responded: > I disagree with this, because we can be affected by the way a > certain character is described. Snape's voice is often described > as "silky", he is always wearing black, sweeping in and out of > rooms, talking in a "soft, dangerous" voice, and looking through his > curtain of black, and sometimes greasy, hair. All these > characteristics have a mysterious tone about them. While he isn't > physically attractive, his mannerisms are somewhat seductive in that > tall dark stranger sort of way. Of course you're right; I agree that the physical description of a character affects how we feel about them. I would just add that we can, in turn, consider why certain physical aspects appeal to some of us and not other. For instance you (and me) find silky, soft, dangerous voices and flowing black robes appealing. Other readers couldn't care less. So the "mysterious" aspect might or might not be considered "seductive," depending on what a person finds seductive. I'm only trying to make the point that we, as readers, glom onto certain aspects of these characters because they are meaningful to us, and yes this does include physical descriptions as well as the other stuff I pointed out. But I wouldn't say it was "sexual attraction in its simplest sense," because it requires a lot of imagination to pull off; it's not just an instinct. Actually, my premise is wrong, since human sexual attraction is *never* simple. :-) But I just get annoyed sometimes at the accusation that Snape's fans only defend him because they have a crush on him, as if a crush were somehow not connected to the complicated depiction of a character and our imaginative and symbolic relationship with it, our own value system, etc. (Note: GulPlum didn't say this; I'm thinking of others who shall remain nameless.) I also agree with Acire's other points about the appeal of Snape's dangerous past (kept in check since he recanted) , his bravery, and most of all the fact that we, as readers, can fill in a lot of blanks about his past as we see fit. :-) That point can't be stressed enough, since it drives so much mental effort in interpretation. I think I'd just add that the appeal of his semi-dangerousness is one of those things that has to be explained since not all women go for that. And again, I'd say it's because we fans identify with it a little; we can vicariously have fun with it without necessarily being dangerous ourselves or associating with people who are. Acire again: > The one thing that just bothers me about your theory is that it > makes Snape sound a little feminine...well, indirectly feminine. But > I really do like your theory. Interestingly, the reason I came up with this theory is that I was pondering the fact that 1) Snape is the product of a female author and 2) Snape's fans are overwhelmingly female. So I wondered if JKR put some of her dark side into Snape and how this was registering with female readers. Of course what I tried to stress in saying that Snape is a cast-off animus (for you Jungians out there) is that he's exactly what women don't get to be. Snape isn't effeminate at all; he's tough, aggressive, competitive, hardnosed, unforgiving, exacting, etc. But on the other hand, there are some feminine (or yin) aspects to Snape's depiction, aren't there? For one thing, I find it intriguing that his craft is the one most often associated with (female) witches; brewing in a cauldron, as opposed to the traditional depiction of wizards with their really big staffs. In fact, he disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with their more sneaky, devious ways (and feminine symbolism). Here I'm sort of smooshing together western "feminine" with "yin" which is also dark, negative, the color black, the night, etc. Still, I'm reminded of a remark of sydpad's from post #43029 where we were also discussing Snape and wands vs. cauldrons: > 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... I think sydpad was onto something and that's the kind of point I'm trying to make. I think Snape has a few covert feminine attributes along with his obvious male ones. In fact, I'd be tempted to add a 'soft, silky' voice, skinniness, long hair and flowing robes to the list of feminine attributes, but I realize those might not strike every person or culture as feminine (to my mind they do). Of course nothing is entirely yin or yang... > -Acire, who finds Sherlock Holmes (a mysogonist, for anyone who > doesn't know) appealing in the same way she finds Snape appealing. Me too. ;-) ~Porphyria From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 01:53:43 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:53:43 -0000 Subject: A plot parallel: Playing dirty In-Reply-To: <2B5C4EA6-0A30-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria wrote: > > Yes, blackmailing. Am I wrong, or is that exactly what Hermione does by > telling Rita she'll narc her out to the Ministry if she publishes another > article within a year? "Rita Skeeter isn't going to be writing anything at > all for a while. Not unless she wants me to spill the beans on her." I don't think this is blackmail. This is saying, 'look, I'll let you go THIS time, but if you cause more problems, I'll tell.' No, this is mercy, actually. Rita DESERVES to get in trouble for being an unregistered animagus, but Hermione is giving her a chance to avoid that trouble. And really, what good would going to her supervisor do? Clearly the powers-that-be at the Prophet don't mind what Rita's scribbling, because they continued to print it. > > "- that's blackmail, that is, we could get into a lot of trouble for that-" > > "- we've tried being polite; it's time to play dirty, like him. He wouldn' > t like the Ministry of Magic knowing what he did -" > > "I'm telling you, if you put that in writing, it's blackmail!" > > > Well, maybe Hermione hasn't put anything in writing, but I'd say it's > close enough. > Blackmail can be from spoken threats as well, but that's neither here nor there. ;) CK From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun Dec 8 01:50:13 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:50:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <000801c29e1f$a45f02a0$70b45a42@falcon> References: <000801c29e1f$a45f02a0$70b45a42@falcon> Message-ID: <188776944574.20021207175013@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 47926 Hi, Saturday, December 07, 2002, 10:37:04 AM, SHolden wrote: > I do see some > slight support of R/Hr, but I see more for H/Hr. So, what is the foreshadowing you see for H/Hr? You say you see more than for R/Hr, and I am wondering what the support for H/Hr is that I'm obviously missing. I'm not normally a shipper and read the HP books for the friendship scene, but couldn't help noticing the build up for R/Hr (mostly in GoF for Hermione's side, but also lots of little moments in the other books. Ron always standing up for her, despite their teasing each other, Hermione's reaction to Ron's crush on Fleur etc.). I haven't really seem much support for future H/Hr, especially not from Harry's side, who (imo) needs to let Hermione know that her appreciates her as a friend. A lot of the time he seems to get annoyed with her mothering and doesn't seem very thankful for all the great help she has given him. And as to book 4 being too early to reveal a relationship: I'd say, neither Ron, nor Hermione have even gotten to the point where they've admitted to each other (and maybe even themselves) what is going on. There will probably a lot more happening until they actually get to the point of dating (JKR did say she wanted to keep the romance light and humorous, not too gritty, so it's most likely going to be used for more comic relied, like in GoF) I'm not sure how Harry feels about romance after what happened in GoF. I could see him be very closed off and having a hard time overcoming the trauma of Cedric's death. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 01:58:32 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:58:32 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. (1 of 9) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47927 Hey, have I ever mentioned that the Crouch family subplot is my very favorite part of GoF? Or that I absolutely adore minor characters? Or that I can get just a wee bit...over-emotional on the subject of the Bartemii Crouch? No? Well, now you know. Some Crouch thoughts here, from the cheerfully insignificant (Was Crouch Sr. Dead Sexy?) to the unabashedly reader responsive (How much did Elkins hate Crouch Sr.? Ooooh, *ever* so much!) to the possibly even marginally thematically relevant. Because I firmly believe that God is in the details, while relevance is usually the Devil's work, the trivial stuff got to go first. This got long. I have therefore divided it into nine separate posts: Part One tackles the all-important question of whether or not Crouch Sr. was Dead Sexy. Those who find this a somewhat less than compelling topic might want to consider yourself warned: there's really not a whole lot else here. Part Two examines Crouch's political situation in the wake of Voldemort's fall and his motives in regard to the trial of the Longbottoms' assailants. Part Three challenges Eileen's reading of Crouch as Tragic Hero. Part Four evaluates the motives underlying his political decisions and how these relate to his narrative function. Part Five contests the claim that Crouch saved his son from prison only in order to honour his wife's dying request. Part Six examines his behavior in regard to his son after the QWC and takes a cold hard look at his thematic role within the text. Part Seven concludes with a discussion of his mirror relationship with his son, his redemption scene, and his thematic function within the context of the series as a bildungsroman. It also contains some outright reader response. Part Eight sweeps up a few stray odds and ends: Crouch's death, his sad sad life, and his possibilities as a future canonical ghost. Part Nine discusses Winky's role in the Crouch family dynamic and expresses a few concerns over what it seems to imply about the authorial attitude towards women and the maternal role. It also defends the Crouch/Winky ship. All of these posts are long. They are eccentric. They are personal. They are digressive. They are Turbo-TBAYed. And much of them were written long-hand in a yellow pad while I was sick in bed and running a very high temperature. So. You have been warned. =================================================================== One C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. ------------ On a table on the promenade of Theory Bay, Eileen has set up a quantity of little paper cups filled with a substance that might once have had its 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 muffled gagging sound from her right. "Elkins!" "Ugh." Elkins, mounted astride a very high hobby horse, clops over to the table and looks down at it with an expression of supreme revulsion. "Oh, I just can't *believe* that you're still out here flogging that red herring mousse, Eileen. It's utterly revolting." "It is not," Eileen objects indignantly. "People seem to like it. Or at the very least not to mind it all that much. Not like those Crouch Jr. apologetics that you're always trying to foist off on people from up on that *horse* of yours." Elkins' hobby horse lays back its ears and bares its teeth. "What have you got against my Crouch Jr. apologetics?" demands Elkins. "*Or* the horse I rode in on, for that matter? At least *Melody* liked my Crouch Jr. apologetics! And need I remind you, Eileen, that young Bartemius is a member in good standing of SYCOPHANTS?" "Oh, I know that, Elkins. But Barty Jr. is...well, he's a sadist. And well...really, really evil." "But he had so much fun!" cries Elkins passionately, gathering her reins in one hand and reaching down with the other to try to force a 'Boys Will Be Boys: Barty Junior Had A Blast!' leaflet on Eileen. Eileen sighs. "Err.... Could I make confession, Elkins?" she asks. "Don't tell anyone I said this, okay, but I really, really love Barty Crouch Jr. I've fought against it a long time. I just didn't *want* to believe that serving an evil Overlord, torturing the Longbottoms, killing your father, ensnaring Harry Potter, and plotting general death and destruction for the world could be viewed as a sympathetic feature of adolescent rebellion. But in the end, you convinced me. Now I just can't help myself. I *do* like young Barty!" "Well, we'll talk about that later, if you want," says Elkins with an amused smile. "But right now, let's talk about this...*custard* of yours, shall we? One thing that I have never been able to understand, Eileen, is how a nice girl like yourself could ever have ended up with an acronym like 'Classy, Rich, Ambitious, Bold: Crouch's Unsung Sexiness Tempts All Raunchy Damsels.' I mean, that's really rather *racy,* don't you think?" "It did make me blush at first," admits Eileen, coloring prettily. "In fact, it took me months even to be able to see it appear on my monitor without having to quickly and demurely avert my eyes lest it sully my innocence." "And now just look at you!" exclaims Elkins. "Standing right out here on the promenade, in front of Stoned!Harry and the 5000 lurkers and everyone! Selling it to the public! Handsawing it to all comers!" "I--" "You shameless hussy!" "But I--" "Don't start crying. And *don't* grovel." "But it's not my *fault,* Elkins!" wails Eileen. "I only requested that acronym in the first place as a reaction to that horrible B.A.B.E.M.E.I.S.T.E.R., the definition of which escapes me right now, except that the second B. stood for Barty and the S. stood for sexier. The whole thing just *frightened* me, and I wanted to put it out of my mind!" "Yessssss," says Elkins uncomfortably, trying to soothe her horse, which seems to have suddenly become unaccountably skittish. "Yes. Erm. Well. To be quite honest with you, Eileen, BABEMEISTER rather frightened me as well. You see, what happened there was that Tabouli overheard me making some comment about being a 'true fan' of young Bartemius, and I fear that she must have thought that I meant it in the..." An expression of profound distaste crosses Elkins' face. "In the, er." She coughs. "In the romantic sense." "And you didn't?" "No! Of course not! I readily admit that I *am* partial to frail, brilliant, neurasthenic young blondes, but I generally prefer for them to fall somewhere short of the psychopathic. Edge is one thing. Over The Edge is quite another. I'll take a pass on that BABEMEISTER t-shirt, thank you. "Althooooooough," she adds, after a moment's thought. "You know, there is one thing that can be said for young Crouch as a fantasy partner..." "Yes?" Elkins smiles thinly. "These days," she says. "He doesn't talk back." Eileen eyes her doubtfully. "And this is a character you really *sympathize* with, is it?" "Well, it's a funny thing, how that works. When you find yourself in strong reader sympathy with a truly wicked character, then it can sometimes be almost reassuring, in a strange sort of way, for him to meet with a very sticky end. It just feels a whole lot *safer* that way. After all, you know how I feel about allowing love -- *any* of the four loves -- to dictate my sense of moral approbation. Liking a character has nothing to do with approving his actions." "I know that!" exclaims Eileen. "I *do* know it! And while it's true that I have become quite enamoured of the Tough and Steely Mr. Crouch, I'm not enamoured to the point of blindness. I can still go all Alexandr Solzhenitsyn on him when the situation demands it. I've conceded his iniquities, haven't I? I did so in message #44636." "You have conceded *some* of his iniquities," Elkins corrects her. "But you still close your eyes to his true nature. Oh, Eileen. You have not even begun to delve the depths of that man's wickedness. Let me tell you a thing or two about that Bartemius Crouch. He--" "Well, he could hardly be worse than his son, now, could he?" interrupts Eileen irritably. "And you *like* his son. So why can't you admit that Crouch Sr. really did have some very noble and redeeming characteristics? Not to mention some Dead Sexy ones? Won't you even try a *taste* of my CRAB CUSTARD? You know that you'll like it, if only you'll give it a try." "I will *not* like it," says Elkins firmly. "It is vile." "It is not vile. It is conveyed by the text. Look, JKR comes right out and tells us that Crouch was attractive: > Until the very end, he was extremely attentive of his looks, he was > a very popular politician, and if you read all his description > pieces (when he isn't ready to pop a vein, in which case Rowling > reaches for the word "bulging",) he comes across as quite a > striking personality. If his eyes aren't "bulging" under the stress > of yet another personal tragedy, Rowling's favourite word for them > is "sharp." "You know, it's interesting that you should have brought up those bulging eyes," comments Elkins softly, glancing up at the C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. banner. "You emphasize them. JKR emphasizes them. The text positively *fixates* upon them. It interests me very much, that." "It does? Why?" Elkins shakes her head. "I'll tell you later," she says quietly. "Go on with your defense." "Well, I went through _Goblet of Fire_ and catalogued every last reference to Mr. Crouch, and > I was very much surprised to discover that most of the code words > for Crouch Sr. were rather attractive, contrast to Snape who gets > the most hideous code words in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if > this was a conscious contrast, indicating beauty is skin deep." "So you're saying that Crouch Sr. was a spiritually ugly man?" Elkins smiles slightly. "I quite agree." "What? Where did I--" "You just said that Rowling contrasts Crouch's physical attractiveness with Snape's unprepossessing appearance in order to emphasize the notion that beauty is only skin deep. So presumably this means that you must recognize that Crouch Sr's attractiveness is merely superficial. That deep down inside, on some ethical or spiritual or psychological level, he is profoundly *ugly.*" "I...I...well, no, wait..." "Also that his true allegiance is suspect." "What?! How did I--" "Snape is on the surface a Dark Wizard. He was a Death Eater, but he was secretly working against Voldemort. So if you think that JKR is consciously contrasting these two characters, then just what does that imply about your dear Barty?" "I...I...now, you STOP that! You're twisting my words!" "I am not twisting them. I am merely parsing them." "You're *twisting* them. You're just being *difficult!*" "Well," admits Elkins, with a slightly parsed smile. "Obedience has never been one of my particular virtues, Eileen." "You're being *stubborn,* is what you're being. You're...you're pulling a *Cindy!* Refusing to concede the point, even though you know perfectly well that I'm right. You know perfectly well that Crouch Sr. Was Dead Sexy!" "Even though he had bulging eyes, a straight part and moustache reminiscent of Adolf Hitler, apoplectic tendencies, and beauty which, as if it were not debatable enough already, *still* only ran skin deep?" "Well..." "Even though you yourself have just suggested a literary parallel with Snape that suggests that although ostensibly working for the forces of good, deep down in his heart of hearts, Bartemius Crouch Was Ever So Evil?" "Finding a character sexy," retorts Eileen hotly. "Has nothing to do with approving his actions, any more than finding him sympathetic does. Why won't you try my CRAB CUSTARD, Elkins? Haven't you read all of my posts? Haven't they swayed you in the slightest? Look! Just *look!*" Eileen steps forward, her arms overflowing with the yellowed scrolls of Crouch Apologetics Past. "He was suave," she says. "A sharp dresser. And brilliant, too -- he spoke over two hundred languages! He had a dry sense of humour, and the ability to remain calm in even the most bizarre circumstances. He was a terrific actor, just like his son. He was exceptionally charismatic. People paid attention to him when he spoke. He had true power of command. And on top of all of that, he reminds me of King Lear!" "You found King Lear Dead Sexy?" Elkins stares at her. "Eileen, that is just so *Bent!*" "He's a proud and seemingly invulnerable man we later come to realize is in fact deeply wounded. We see him suffering both nobly and terribly. That means that he partakes of Hurt-Comfort!" "Not to mention Comfort-Hurt," comments Cindy, who has stopped by to watch with a bemused expression on her face. "Would you stop that!" cries Eileen. "There is no such *thing* as Comfort-Hurt!" "Sure there is." Cindy turns to Elkins. "You see, Elkins," she explains earnestly. "Eileen here takes *comfort* in the knowledge that Crouch Sr. would not balk at *hurting* her." "Slander!" screams Eileen. "How dare you insinuate such a thing? And besides, there is *no such thing* as... Elkins, tell her, will you? Tell her there's no such thing as Comfort-Hurt!" "Don't be silly, Eileen," replies Elkins, choking back snickers. "Of course there's such a thing as...uh, what Cindy has chosen to refer to as 'Comfort-Hurt.' What else do you think makes Mrs. Lestrange so Dead Sexy? Or Lucius Malfoy, for that matter?" "Just admit it, Eileen," says Cindy. "It's those *jack-boots* you like so much." "You said as much yourself," Elkins points out. "In message #40543. Remember? You said, 'Elkins, SYCOPHANTS were made to worship Tough people.' You even said it in 'an impassioned, and curiously trembling voice,' as I seem to recall." "'Impassioned and curiously trembling,'" Cindy repeats. "I...I...well, all right then! All right! *Fine!* So maybe there *is* some appeal there. I'm a SYCOPHANT, aren't I? And we SYCOPHANTS really *were* made to worship Tough people, you know. It's in our contract and everything. Our knees go *weak* in the face of the Tough and the Steely!" "Eileen!" laughs Elkins. "*Please!*" "Well, they do. Aren't you supposed to be a SYCOPHANT, Elkins? Surely you like those jack-boots too, don't you? You were the one who first started slobbering all over the Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange, after all. So why won't you try just a taste of my CRAB CUSTARD? You loved the man's son. I assume that was at least in part because of your appreciation for his brilliance. His brilliance and his manipulative talents. Well, what about his poor father's brilliance? What about his poor father's manipulative talents? Just where do you think Barty Jr. got that from anyway? That was Point Seven of my original CRAB CUSTARD manifesto, see?" > 7. Barty Jr. inherited his talent for acting from his father. "You think *that's* where he learned those talents? From his father? Huh." Elkins leans back in her saddle. "Huh," she says again. "Well. I guess that *is* an interesting question. Where *did* young Crouch learn to manipulate people so well? To hone unerringly in on others' weaknesses? To exploit their vulnerabilities? To get other people to do precisely what he wanted?" She raises an eyebrow. "You think he learned all that from his *father,* Eileen?" Eileen narrows her eyes. "You do know," she says, "that I don't LIKE Mrs. Crouch?" "Like her or loathe her," Elkins says cheerfully, "you can't deny that she was formidable." "Formidable?" Cindy looks disgusted. "Oh, please, Elkins. She was *wispy.* She rocks, she snivels, she faints. She wastes away. She doesn't even get a single line of dialogue. She's not Tough. She's a SYCOPHANT. She's *Weak.*" "Weak? You think that Mrs. Crouch was *Weak?* Oh, no." Elkins shakes her head. "Oh, no, no, no. No, I really don't think so. She walked of her own free will into Azkaban, where she knew that she was going to die. In misery, reliving the worst memories of her life, cut off from everyone she loved, utterly alone. She did this of her own free will. And then, on her death bed, in a milieu in which people lose their sanity, in which people forget even who they *are,* she still managed to take her Polyjuice Potion, every hour on the hour, right up until her death. Mrs. Crouch wasn't a SYCOPHANT, Cindy. Mrs. Crouch was *Tough.* Mrs. Crouch could have kicked Imperius around the *block.* Mrs. Crouch made her husband look like a *piker!* Mrs. Crouch was made of pure *steel!* And as for that fainting spell..." "Yes?" "Well, does it really seem in keeping with what we later learn the woman was capable of? Is someone who can keep on sipping at her Polyjuice Potion even while surrounded by Dementors *and* on the brink of death really the sort of woman who swoons in a courtroom, do you think? And honestly, now, didn't that fainting spell seem just a little bit *too* well-timed to you?" "Dramatic license," suggests Eileen. "Yes, but whose? JKR's, or Mrs. Crouch's? You know, I have a confession to make here," says Elkins, lowering her voice and glancing nervously up at the Safe House looming above the Bay on the far headland. "I was seriously tempted by Pip's Ever So Evil Mrs. Crouch." "I thought that Flying Hedgehog made you blanche!" "Well, she does. That's part of why I like her so much. *Especially* if you combine her with a Conflicted-In-Her-Loyalties! Winky. Put together, those two make for quite a devestatingly compelling little speculation. But in the end, I'm afraid that I just can't quite make myself believe in them. I do think that Mrs. Crouch was putting on an act there in the Penseive, though. I'm not quite up for Death Eating Mrs. Crouch, but I'd say that her son took after her in a lot more ways than just physical frailty." "He didn't get her strength of resolve, though," points out Eileen. "No. He didn't get her strength of resolve. *Either* of his parents' strengths of resolve, really. But then, you know, when you have someone who is an only child, a talented only child, an only child of a wealthy family, whose parents are both immensely devoted to each other, both highly invested in their child's performance, and who are *both* made of pure steel?" Both Elkins and her hobby horse shudder violently. She reaches down to stroke the horse on the neck. "It's often difficult for people with that sort of upbringing to develop any normal sense of self-assertion," she says quietly. "Or of independence. Or of individuation. Or even of identity, really. I think that the fact that Crouch Jr's parents were both so strong- willed probably had a lot to do with his dissociative tendencies. That's a family dynamic that often encourages a child to engage in some rather...indirect modes of expression." Eileen frowns. "Indirect?" "Indirect. Circuitous. Multiplicitous. Sly, sidelong, allusive. Kaleidoscopic. One might even say *schizopathic.* Somewhat schizophrenic modes of expression, Eileen. Double-edged statements. Hidden meanings. Concretized metaphor. And the tendency..." Elkins' voice trails off. She glances out over the Bay, taking in the diverse vessels, the flying flags, all of the landmarks: the Canon Museum, the Canon College, the Weather Station, the Safe House. St. Mungos. The Garden of Good and Evil. She shivers convulsively and shuts her eyes. "The tendency to get caught up in fantasy," she whispers. "To allow oneself to become *subsumed.* Subsumed into other people's desires. Subsumed into other people's *personae.*" She takes a deep breath and shakes her head. "Yes," she says briskly. "Yes, well. We were talking about the *text* here, were we not? And I do think that the text implies that Mrs. Crouch was not precisely what she appeared to be in that Pensieve scene. I'd say that young Crouch probably learned more than a little about manipulation right at his mother's knees." "Well, maybe," says Eileen. "Maybe. But Mr. Crouch was a master manipulator as well. Just > watch how he manipulates Diggory in "The Dark Mark": down to the > point where he allows Diggory to question Winky superficially, and > keeps completely out of it to look objective, and then blocks > Diggory from actually finding out anything." "Why, yes." Elkins smiles appreciatively. "Yes, he *was* manipulative there, wasn't he?" "And I know how much you like that sort of thing, Elkins. Everybody does. Everyone knows that you adore manipulators. So why don't you like canny old Crouch, eh? He's younger than Harry thinks he is, you know. He's described as 'elderly' when Harry first sees him, but that's just Harry's misapprehension. He's not really that old at all, especially by wizarding standards. When we see him in the Pensieve, it becomes clear that he's been aged beyond his years. > He had grey hair in GoF, for sure, but a kid like Bartemius Jr. > would give anyone grey hair." "Oh!" Elkins laughs hollowly. "Oh, ho, ho. Oh, Eileen! *Eileen.* My *dear!* I *assure* you." She bares her teeth unpleasantly. "Having *parents* like the Crouches can leave you with more than your fair share of grey hair as well. You really want to *trust* me on this point. "But," she adds, after a short silence. "*That* is a matter for my therapist. And besides, just what is so unsexy about prematurely grey hair anyway? Grey hair is perfectly sexy in its own right!" There is a long silence, punctuated only by the sound of crickets chirping off in the distance. "Well, it is!" Elkins turns away, shaking her head. "Everyone thinks it's sexy when Lupin's got it," she mutters. "Well, all right, then," says Eileen soothingly. "All right. If it isn't the hair, then what is it? Why must you be so stubborn about this? You *know* that you'll like my CRAB CUSTARD, if only you'll give it a try." Elkins shakes her head firmly from side to side. "Oh, come on," wheedles Eileen, advancing on the horse, paper cup in one hand, spoon in the other. "It's good. Just try some, won't you? Just a bite? Just one--" "Eileen!" Elkins says sharply, trying to control her horse, which has begun to back away skittishly. "Suave, brilliant, manipulative, ruthless, jack-booted, partakes of hurt-comfort..." "EILEEN!" Elkins screams, sawing at the reins of her bucking, wheeling hobby horse. Eileen hesitates, puzzled, her spoon half-raised. "Eileen," gasps Elkins, clinging to the neck of her horse for dear life. "Eileen. You, uh, remember back when Tabouli coined that acronym for me? B.A.B.E.M.E.I.S.T.E.R? When she misunderstood the nature of my feelings for young Crouch? When she thought that it was a matter of romantic attraction? You remember that?" "Yes?" "Well, it wasn't. Okay? It wasn't a case of romantic attraction at all. It was a case of *reader identification.*" "So? I--" "*Strong* reader identification, Eileen. Reader identification based on strong *autobiographical congruence.* Okay?" "I..." Eileen blinks. "Oh." "There's more than one alternative answer to the Third Task sphinx's riddle," says Elkins, now gone even paler than the horse she rides. "And one of them has strong mythic precedent. So can you please stop asking me to taste that custard of yours? Please? Because you know, if I were to do that? I mean, if I were even to *think* about it? If I were to so much as contemplate putting that stuff anywhere near my mouth? Even for a second?" She laughs uneasily. "Um," she says. "Well. That really *would* become a matter for my therapist." "Oh, you have *got* to be kidding me," Cindy snorts. "You feel a strong sense of reader identification with a mad, sadistic, parricidal *Death Eater,* Elkins! And now you're...what? Balking at a tiny bit of incest taboo?" "As it happens, yes. I'm not that Bent. Not yet, at any rate." Elkins clutches her horse's neck, and looks at Eileen with large and frightened eyes. "I can't concede that he's Dead Sexy, Eileen," she says. "Please don't make me." Eileen frowns. "You do realize, don't you," she says in a tight little voice, "that I have never before won an argument with you? I mean, not *ever?* Not *once?* And now that I finally have, you have the...the...the...the...the unmitigated *gall* to ask me not to make you so much as concede the *point?*" "But I'll be sick if I try to swallow that stuff," whines Elkins pleadingly. "I just know that I will. I'll never be able to keep it down. Please don't make me, Eileen. Please don't. Please?" Eileen exhales hard. "Well, will you at least concede that the *text* marks him as Dead Sexy?" "I will concede," Elkins says tentatively. "That the text does encourage us to read him as *charismatic...*" Eileen crosses her arms over her chest and scowls. "And," Elkins stammers. "And that it doesn't rule out a reading of Crouch as...well, as, you know, as attractive. In a way. If you...you know. If you like that sort of thing." Eileen raises one eyebrow. "And, uh, that it does so," continues Elkins. "Not only in all of the ways that you have already mentioned, but also by its repeated allocation of sexualized subplots to Crouch." "Yes?" says Eileen coldly. "Elaborate." "Eileen, please, I..." "*Elaborate.*" Elkins looks into Eileen's uncharacteristically Tough and Steely gaze, then quickly looks away. "Well, all right," she says faintly. "For starters, there's Winky. The text clearly marks Winky as Crouch's wife. Crouch confides his workplace troubles to her. He allows her to intercede with him on behalf of his son. She plays the maternal intercessionary role, mitigating the harshness of his paternal discipline. She throws the memory of his dead wife against him. Ron says that she seems to love him. And her anguish at having been released from his service is repeatedly emphasized as abnormal. It isn't the usual reaction of a rejected House Elf. It's different. It's excessive. It's personal." "Yes? Go on." "Well, whether one believes that Crouch was actually sharing his bed with his elf, or that as you've suggested, it is a literary parallel designed to equate Winky with Mrs. Crouch, or that as Pippin has suggested, it is a parallel designed to equate the plight of the House Elves in general with those of housewives...well, I mean, no matter which approach you choose to take with this, there's just no getting around the fact that there's a sexualized subtext, is there? It's embedded in the text." Eileen nods. "What else?" "Wasn't that enough?" whispers Elkins. "You said sexualized subplots, Elkins. SubplotS. Plural." "Well...oh, all right. There's also Percy." "Percy?" "Yes. There's more than a touch of homoerotic insinuation to all of those teasing comments that Ron and the Twins are always making about Percy's idolization of Crouch. They all but accuse him of being Crouch's catamite, don't they? Or at least of wanting very badly to be. The tenor of the teasing does seem to imply a certain shared (if unspoken) recognition of the man's more charismatic qualities. If Crouch were repulsive, then Percy's brothers would *still* probably be teasing him about wanting to marry him, but the nature of the teasing would be a little different. It would have a slightly different edge to it. A different slant." "Yes. And so?" "Please don't make me say this, Eileen." "And *so*?" "And." Elkins takes a deep shaky breath. "And," she says, "and, well, and, and so Crouch really does seem to be getting a number of...well, of somewhat sexually-inflected subplots attached to him, doesn't he, while other characters who occupy similar roles in the text are not. Ludo Bagman doesn't have any particularly sexualized undercurrents attached to him that I've ever noticed, and neither does Cornelius Fudge. Crouch is a sexualized character in a way that other characters who perform similar functions to his in the text are not. Which does seem to indicate..." Elkins begins to gag helplessly. She swallows hard and presses her head against her horse's neck. "Which does seem to indicate," she gasps, eyes tearing. "That the text does at least *facilitate* a reading of his character as...as..." "As Dead Sexy?" "Well, as a sexual being, at any rate." "As Dead Sexy." "Possibly as possessed of a certain magnetism." "In other words, as Dead Sexy." "Well..." "As Dead Sexy." "ALL RIGHT!" Elkins screams. "All *right!* As Dead Sexy. *IF* you happen to like that sort of thing. Which I myself absolutely do *NOT! * Okay? Enough? Does that *SATISFY* you, Eileen? Are you *HAPPY* now?" Eileen considers the question for a moment, then smiles. "Yes," she says. ************** Elkins (who far prefers Arthur Weasley) ********************************************************************* REFERENCES: Opening TBAY scenario: #43326 Eileen's original CRAB CUSTARD manifesto: #37476. Crouch: #45693, #45402, #44636, #40543, #43010 and downthread responses. Acronyms: #35630, #37498. Ever So Evil Mrs. Crouch: #39573. ESE Winky: #39102. Hurt-Comfort: #39083 and downthread responses. Comfort-Hurt: #43373 and downthread responses. For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From melclaros at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 01:58:36 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:58:36 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: <5D6E826C-0A3B-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria wrote: > . > > However, what is is we typically see Snape doing? He gets to teach 11 year > olds Boil-Curing Potion *over and over and over.* He has to herd them from > class to class when there is some danger in the castle. He has to keep > them in line and break up fights. He has to babysit. He has to make sure > they get medical treatment when they injure themselves, and protect them > from their own recklessness. And, in what I think is one of the series' > moments of pure comic genius, Snape has to play hyper-conscientious > nursemaid to Lupin, someone he'd just as soon poison. > > So my argument states that Snape appeals to *some* women who feel > frustrated that society, their families, or life in general obliges them > into a caretaker role when they privately feel that they are better suited > for more intellectual work. Some of these women might reject caretaker > roles for themselves, and others might be *extremely dutiful* mothers, > teachers and nurses who simply feel the pressure to be compassionate and > tender-hearted all the time. It's a heavy burden for anyone not 100% > sweetness and light in the first place. But what if women actually acted > like Snape! It's hardly an option for any of us who care about what our > loved ones think of us. (If only the world were as accepting as Dumbledore! > ) So Snape is deliciously enjoyable because, as a literary character, he > can get away with all the nastiness he wants and we can enjoy it > vicariously without actually hurting anyone in the Real World. me: Oh. My. God. That's me. It really really is. I've heard the "animus" theory before, spelled out in more Jungian terms and some reading on that topic might satisfy the ones who tend to think of the attraction in terms of sexual fantasy. This explanation, however is far closer to the quick for myself, (however sexy I find the Potions Master despite it) and to be honest for at least one or two women I know who are of my age and in my circumstances. HOWEVER...having said that and admitted to being miserable with some life choices (A HA! There again...) I do have to say that my own *personal* infatuation with Snape hit fully formed with his first appearance in the first book. The narrative description of him--not his appearance--but of his ability to hold his class in thrall, "He spoke in barely a whisper..." was like a glass of ice water being thrown over me. Follow that with that masterful "Potions Speech" and, well I'm afraid Gildroy will have to knock elsewhere. I am going to dig in my heels and say that he really IS a fascinating character whether he's my animus or not. Trying to figure out where he came from, where he's going and what the hell he's up to is not only fun and interesting, but frightening. Following him is like trying to make your way through a maze in the dark, you know there's an unexpected turn or a solid wall in front of you somewhere, you just don't know where or when. And the chase is so much fun, it's worth running into that dead end. From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 02:10:29 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 02:10:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Where Three Roads Meet (2 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47929 Two Where Three Roads Meet ------------ "So," says Eileen, rearranging her small cups of CRAB CUSTARD with an ill-concealed air of insufferably smug self-satisfaction. "Now that you've conceded that Crouch Sr. was indeed Dead Sexy, what next?" "I have conceded no such thing," protests Elkins. "I have merely conceded that the text does indeed *facilitate* such a reading. For those Sick and Twisted and Warped and *Bent* enough to take the text up on its offer, that is." Eileen sighs. "You know, Elkins," she comments. "I really am growing inured to your habit of calling me Sick and Twisted and Warped and Bent. I hardly even notice it anymore. I hope that doesn't disappoint you too terribly much." "It elates me," says Elkins coldly. She drops her reins to allow her very high horse to nibble at the tough sea grasses lining the promenade along Theory Bay and pulls her yellowed old copy of the CRAB CUSTARD manifesto out of her pocket. She unrolls it carefully and reads for a few moments. She frowns. "Eileen," she says. "I'm afraid, you know, that I really must take umbrage at this...*insinuation* of yours that poor dear Bartemius Junior was the one responsible for the graying of his beastly father's wretched hair. I simply can't allow that to pass any longer. It really is the most vile slander imaginable, and--" "You think *that's* the most vile slander imaginable?" Cindy pushes up her hat and stares at Elkins. "Wow. You must have a *really* limited imagination. I can think up viler slander than *that* standing on my *head!* Hey, have I ever told you about why I think Snape *really* left the DEs? Or about how Arthur Weasley used to cast the Imperius Curse on people? Or about how--" "Have you really been dwelling on that throw-away comment ever since early in April?" Eileen asks, bemused. "It's completely unjust!" Elkins says crossly. "And totally contradicted by the text. Just look!" ===================================================================== On April 5, in message #37476, Eileen wrote: > How come Crouch Sr. doesn't have a cool acronym, I wondered? He had > grey hair in GoF, for sure, but a kid like Bartemius Jr. would give > anyone grey hair. Heh. Well. Maybe so. Maybe so. However. While it is indeed possible to lay many dark, dire and dreadful things at Crouch Jr's feet, his father's transition from dark-haired to gray is not, alas, one of them. > It's described as dark beforehand. Well, now, let's be fair, shall we? Crouch's hair would seem to have started going grey somewhere around the time of Rookwood's arrest. During Karkaroff's testimony, "Crouch's hair was dark." At Bagman's trial, "Mr. Crouch looked more tired and somehow fiercer, gaunter..." By the time we get to the sentencing of young Crouch and his co-defendents, "Harry looked up at Crouch and saw that he looked gaunter and grayer than ever before." Now, if Harry thought Crouch looked "grayer than ever before" at his son's trial, yet his hair was still "dark" at Karkaroff's hearing, then that must mean that it started to show the first signs of grey at Bagman's trial, which in turn indicates that Crouch's hair started to turn *before* the Longbottom Incident. So. While I am sure that his son's arrest did indeed greatly accelerate the process, you can't go laying the blame for Crouch's evident aging *all* at young Barty's feet. I'm tempted to suggest that the combined stress of revelations of moles in the ministry, political intrigue in the wake of Voldemort's fall, his wife's terminal illness, and his own loss of personal political autonomy were all likely contributing factors to Crouch's gaunting and greying. His son's arrest would merely have been the icing on the cake. ====================================================================== "More Crouch Jr. apologetics, Elkins?" "I simply couldn't allow that slander to go unaddressed any longer, Eileen." "Elkins," says Cindy. "You do realize that you've just gone to all the trouble to man the canons simply in order to provide a timeline for the greying of Crouch Sr's *hair,* don't you?" "Well, I--" "What's next, pray tell? A stirring defense of the notion that Snape's hair isn't really unwashed, just naturally oily?" Elkins flushes. "Look," she says. "Do you have any idea what it is *like* being young Crouch's defender? Do you, Cindy? Do you? It. Is. A. *NIGHTMARE!* Okay? He's guilty of just about everything under the sun. And more than a few things that lurk in the darkness as well. He's a Death Eater. He's a sadist. He's a weakling. He's a patricide. He's dissociative. He letches after Parvati. He makes poor widdle Neville cry. He--" "He tortured the Longbottoms," contributes Cindy helpfully. "*Allegedly* tortured the Longbottoms," snaps Elkins. "Be careful." "Oh, Elkins. Please." "Well, he really could have been innocent of that one, you know. It's extremely unlikely, but it is possible. But my point here is that when you speak for young Crouch, you find yourself spending an awful lot of your time pleading 'guilty as charged.' So you can hardly blame me if I get a little bit excited when somebody finally hurls an *unfounded* allegation against the poor lad, can you? And besides," she adds defensively. "Crouch's Graying Hair Timeline is highly significant!" "Significant? As significant as the question of whether or not Crouch Sr. was Dead Sexy, I suppose. Face it, Elkins. You have nothing to say here. All of this stuff is just useless *trivia!*" "Yes?" Elkins smiles faintly. "It's interesting that you should have used that particular word, Cindy. Do you know the derivation of the word 'trivia?' It comes from the Latin. From _trivium._ Meaning 'crossroads.' "Specifically," she adds, with a meaningful glance over to Eileen. "A very particular *type* of crossroads. Originally it referred to a place where *three roads meet.*" Eileen looks up sharply from her cups of CRAB CUSTARD. Elkins smiles unpleasantly at her. "The Devil's in the details," she says softly. "Isn't it, Eileen." "What?" Cindy looks between the two of them them, puzzled. "What are you..." "The Crouch's Greying Hair Timeline," Elkins says, still smiling rather predatorily over at Eileen. "Is relevant because it speaks to Crouch's political situation in the years following Voldemort's fall. Which in turn speaks to his state of mind at the time of his son's arrest. Which in turn speaks to his motivations in regard to his son's trial. Which in *turn,*" she concludes. "Has direct bearing on the nature of his _hamartia._" "His what?" asks Cindy. "His fault, his failing. The error that leads to his destruction." "His tragic flaw," explains Eileen. "Oh." "And that, in turn, has direct bearing on Eileen's reading of Crouch as Tragic Hero." "So you *did* read my Crouch As Tragic Hero post," exclaims Eileen. "I'd wondered." "Yes, I did. I liked it very much. Although..." Elkins hesitates. "Well, it's rather a curious structure for a tragedy, isn't it? One in which the cathartic recognition of wrong-doing happens before the nature of that wrong-doing has yet been revealed to the audience? I mean, structurally speaking, it doesn't really hold together all that well as a tragedy, does it? We get Crouch's redemption scene before we've even learned what his *hamartia* is. Kind of weakens the catharsis, don't you think?" "Well, none of those secondary meanings that you like so much in Crouch Jr's dialogue are visible on first reading either," retorts Eileen, with spirit. "Oh, true enough. True enough. And really, I have no problem at all with readings that are only discernable on a second go-round. They're my favorite ones. But Crouch as Tragic Hero just doesn't hold together for me, because...well..." Elkins' smirk quivers. She shifts uncomfortably in her saddle. "Eileen," she says slowly. "Do you remember back in message #44636, when you told me: > Let me confess that I like nothing better than seeing you attack > Crouch Sr. It makes me feel beleaguered and under pressure?" "Yeeees," says Eileen cautiously. "I do seem to remember saying something like that to you once. Despiadado Denethor, wasn't it?" "Yes. Well, uh, look. You really did mean that, didn't you? I mean, you weren't just saying that? You really *meant* it?" "Uh-oh," mutters Cindy. "Well, I don't know," says Eileen. "There isn't going to be vituperative language involved here, is there?" "Almost certainly," Elkins assures her. "Vituperative language galore. Also stridency, hostility, and bile. Possibly even some spitting. I *did* tell you that I hadn't even begun to touch on Mr. Crouch's iniquities, didn't I? And you *know* how I feel about the man. I just couldn't *believe* that he wasn't included as an option on that 'who do you hate the most?' poll on OTC. I mean, the pathetic Cornelius Fudge? The sad sad Dursleys? That mild- mannered fellow Voldemort? And yet no Barty Crouch Sr.? Really! What on earth is *wrong* with people?" Eileen opens her mouth to speak, then seems to think better of it. "So yes," Elkins concludes. "There will likely be vituperative language. No Cruciatus this time, though. I promise. Although there may be a little bit of politics. But you don't mind a little bit of politics, do you, Eileen?" "*UH*-oh," Cindy says again. "These are going to be *Potterverse* politics, Elkins. Aren't they?" "But of course," replies Elkins, her eyes very wide. "What on earth could real world politics *possibly* have to do with Crouch's plotline?" "Well," says Eileen after a second's pause. "I'm game. Really, there's so much to talk about here. Has anyone ever tried to sort out what was going on with the Department of Magical Law Enforcement? Too much speculation about James, Lily, Peter, Dumbledore and such things. Not enough speculation about Crouch's strategies." "I *quite* agree," says Elkins, rather grimly. "So let's take a look at those strategies, shall we? Have you noticed, by the way, that the Crouch's Greying Hair Timeline contradicts Sirius' accounting of events?" "It does?" Cindy frowns. "How does it do that?" "Well, Sirius implies that young Crouch's arrest was a catastrophic event, doesn't he? A sudden stroke of fate, descending from the heavens to strike poor old Crouch down just when his life seemed to be going perfectly? He says: 'So old Crouch lost it all, just when he thought he had it made.... One moment, a hero, poised to become Minister of Magic...next, his son dead, his wife dead, the family name dishonored, and, so I've heard since I escaped, a big drop in popularity.'" "Yeah? So?" "So the evidence of the Pensieve contradicts this. It shows us that the revelation of his son's involvement with the Death Eaters wasn't actually a catastrophic occurrence for Crouch at all. It was *calamitous* for him, to be sure. But it wasn't actually *catastrophic.* It wasn't a sudden blow of fate that struck him from out of the blue just when everything was going his way, as Sirius seems to imply. It wasn't anything like that. It was a last straw, not a first cause. Crouch's hold on his political power was slipping even before the Longbottom affair happened." "You're getting all of this from the state of the man's *hair?*" "No. Also from Ludo Bagman's trial. Look." =================================================================== "'When Voldemort disappeared, it looked like only a matter of time until Crouch got the top job. But then something rather unfortunate happened...' Sirius smiled grimly. 'Crouch's own son was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban.'" The impression of Crouch that we get from Sirius in "Padfoot Returns" is that of a man who had the public wrapped around his little finger in the wake of Voldemort's fall. He could send a man to prison for life without even giving him a trial. He could authorize his Aurors to summarily execute those who had never been formally accused of any crime. He could authorize the use of torture, and of mind control. And the public was behind him. Sirius says that Crouch had popular support. He claims that the people were 'clamoring' for Crouch to become the next Minister of Magic, and he suggests that what changed this state of affairs was Crouch's son's implication in the assault on the Longbottoms. The scenes that we see in the Pensieve, however, tell a very different story. What they show us is that Crouch's popularity, as well as his hold on his power, had begun to slip even before his son's arrest. In the first of the Pensieve scenes, Karkaroff's hearing, an eleven year war that was clearly deeply traumatic for the WW has just come to an end. Not much time seems to have passed since Voldemort's fall: there is still talk of rounding up the "last of the Death Eaters," and the Azkaban grape-vine, which will later enable Sirius to learn about the imprisoned Death Eaters' thoughts on both Karkaroff and Pettigrew, does not seem to have yet been established. Karkaroff is sorely ignorant of what has been happening in the outside world since his imprisonment: he has not learned of Rosier's death; he does not know of Dolohov's arrest. The war doesn't seem to have been over for very long at all in this first scene, and Crouch is looking *great.* He is "fit and alert," his face is comparatively unlined, his hair is dark. Moody describes the decision to cut a deal with Karakaroff as if it had been Crouch's own, a decision which it is very hard to believe the head of the DMLE would still be permitted to make unilaterally in the current time period of the canon. Crouch's command over the situation at Karkaroff's hearing never falters. He comes across as a man in full control of his situation. The next scene we see, however, shows us rather a dramatic change in Crouch's status. At Ludo Bagman's trial, the public turns against Crouch. They cut him off with angry murmers before he can even finish delivering his recommendation to the jury, and they cheer the defendent he is trying to prosecute. In the end, they effectively overturn his verdict: Ludo Bagman walks free. Furthermore, when Crouch tries to intervene: "....there was an angry outcry from the surrounding benches. Several of the witches and wizards around the walls stood up, shaking their heads, and even their fists, at Mr. Crouch." Shaking their *fists* at him? Unsurprisingly, it is also at Bagman's trial that Harry first notices Crouch's signs of age. It is here, not at his son's trial, that he first begins to be described with terms like "gaunt," and it is here, not at his son's trial, that his hair is first beginning to go grey. This does not look to me like a man who is at the ascendant of his political career, considered a 'hero,' poised to be swept into office as the next Minister of Magic by a groundswell of popular support, as Sirius' account would lead us to believe. This looks to me like a man who has already begun to lose the good will of the populace. This looks to me like a man whose political star is already beginning to fall. ====================================================================== "I don't think that it was his son's arrest that destroyed Crouch's political career at all," says Elkins firmly. "I think that it was peace." "Peace?" Elkins nods. "Crouch rose to power during the war, and apparently he did so rather...precipitously. Sirius says that 'he rose quickly through the Ministry.' Now, Crouch may not be quite as elderly as Harry initially thinks that he is, but I don't think that he was exactly a young man either. So what we are looking at here is a man whose rise to power was itself a by-product of the war. We are looking at a man who was *made* by the war." "Times like that bring out the best in some people," offers Eileen. "And the worst in others. Crouch owed his rise to power to the war, and the war seems to have treated him well. When we first see him in the Pensieve, he hardly looks worn down by all of his heroic efforts to stem the tide of Dark Wizardry, does he? He doesn't look worn down at all. He looks *great.* Really, Voldemort's rise would seem to have been very good to Crouch. It enabled him to seize far more power for himself than he would ordinarily have been entitled to. It allowed him to relax the restrictions on the Aurors, men who seem to have been accountable to him personally in his role as the Head of the DMLE. By the end of the conflict, it seems that he had even managed to wrest for himself somehow the right to make unilateral decisions regarding the disposition of prisoners. He is the one who gives the 'authorization' to send Sirius Black to prison without trial. He is the one who cuts a deal with Karkaroff and allows him to walk free. "That's an extraordinary amount of power for one man to hold," Elkins concludes grimly. "*Especially* in a society which, as we see from the Pensieve trials, ordinarily adheres to a system of trial by jury." "Well, you know, Elkins," Cindy says. "There *was* a war on." "Yes. There was a war on. The Romans had a word for people who were granted extraordinary powers during times of war. They called them *dictators.* Is it just me, or is there something just a little bit...suggestive about the way that Sirius describes Crouch's popularity in 'Padfoot Returns?'" "He says Crouch was a popular politician," Cindy says, shrugging. "And that he was a favorite to become the next Minister of Magic. What's wrong with that?" "Not a thing. But that's not precisely what he says." Eileen ducks under her CRAB CUSTARD table, emerging a few moments later with a copy of _GoF._ She opens it to a well worn spot and begins to read. "'He had his supporters, mind you -- plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamoring for him to take over as Minister of Magic.'" "Yes," says Elkins. "'Supporters.' 'Clamoring.' 'Clamoring for him to take over.' What does that sound like to you?" Cindy's eyes light up. "A *coup!*" she cries. "It sounds like a bloody *coup!*" "Elkins," says Eileen reprovingly. "Now look what you've done." "Bloody Coup! Bloody Coup! Bloody Coup!" "You just *had* to set her off, didn't you? Elkins, you know perfectly well that you're exaggerating again. Crouch wasn't Stalin, and he wasn't planning a bloody coup either." "No," agrees Elkins. "He wasn't planning a bloody coup. If he'd really been planning a bloody coup, then he would have had his Aurors march right into Bagman's trial and *arrest* that pesky jury." Cindy, her Big Paddle clutched in her hands and a wild gleam in her eyes, opens her mouth as if to speak. "Which he did *not.*" Elkins adds firmly. "He didn't even have them standing around looking menacing. I'm not claiming that Crouch was planning a bloody coup." "No bloody coup?" Cindy asks, looking heart-broken. "No. However, I do think that there are some elements of that dynamic implied by the text. He does seem to have seized for himself quite a few unilateral powers by the end of the war. People are always talking about what *Crouch* did. Crouch sent Sirius Black and others to prison without trial. Crouch cut a deal with Karkaroff. Crouch authorized harsh measures. It's just...well, let me just ask you this. Who was the Minister of Magic while Crouch was the head of the DMLE?" Eileen blinks. "The what?" she asks. "The Minister of *Magic.* At the time of Voldemort's fall. You know, the man in charge? The fellow Crouch was supposedly all poised to replace? Who was he? What was his *name?*" There is silence. "We could always check the Lexicon..." suggests Eileen. "It's probably in one of the schoolbooks somewhere..." says Cindy. "Uh-huh. Right. Okay, let's try this one, then. In Harry's day, in the time period of the canon, who is the person we see authorizing all extraordinary legal measures? Who decides to place Hagrid into custody? Who authorizes the Dementor's Kiss to be used on Sirius Black? Who gives Harry a pass on his violations of the Restriction on Underage Wizardry? Who is the person we consistently see making those decisions?" There is another brief silence. "Cornelius Fudge," Eileen answers, at length. "Yes. Cornelius Fudge. Who is the *Minister of Magic.* And the current head of the DMLE is...?" Cindy mumbles something about the schoolbooks. "I'd say that the war treated Crouch pretty well," Elkins says softly. "Wouldn't you? "But it ended. Voldemort fell, the war ended, and once that happened, Crouch started to lose his influence. We see it happening, right there in the Pensieve. We see the public turn against him at Bagman's trial. We see them shake their fists at him, and cheer on the defendent. We see his signs of exhaustion, his evident signs of aging. All of that happened *before* the arrest of the Pensieve Four. Sirius' account of the timeline is the account of history, but we all know that history tends to telescope events. Events get telescoped in retrospect. The Pensieve scenes show us how those events actually played out at the *time,* and what they show is that Crouch's career was already in trouble. It was in trouble even before the assault on the Longbottoms took place." "Because the war had ended," murmers Eileen. "Because the war had ended. And also because...well, JOdel touched on something rather significant, I thought, when she wrote: > Heaven only knows what Crouch's plans are for a peacetime > government, but it seems fairly safe to say that no former DE > likes the idea." "I should say that they wouldn't!" exclaims Eileen. "Well, I don't think that anyone liked the idea very much, frankly," says Elkins. "I think that the Pensieve scenes show us that even perfectly law-abiding citizens were already beginning to have some serious qualms about Crouch even by the time of Bagman's trial. People always talk about Bagman's trial as if it is just an illustration of the jury's bias in favor of a popular celebrity, you know, but I've always read it as a bit more than that myself." "You also read it as an expression of public hostility towards Crouch?" asks Eileen. "Something like that. Or at the very least, as a good hard yank on his choke chain. I'm sure that the jury idolized Bagman, but I also think that it was sending a message to Crouch. I don't believe that Crouch was planning a coup, but I think that his political ambitions did rather incline him in that direction, and the people in that courtroom knew it. I read their behavior at Bagman's trial as more than just an expression of celebrity worship. I also read it as a check. A jerk on the choke-chain. Maybe even as something akin to a *warning.*" "I've said myself that Bagman's case should never have come to trial," says Eileen slowly. "So you think the jury was warning Crouch that they weren't going to stand for any more shaky convictions?" "Yes. I think they were conveying the message that the time for witch-hunts was over. As was the time for dictatorial unilateral powers. That they weren't going to put up with Crouch pulling those sorts of stunts anymore and that if he tried it, they weren't going to follow his lead. That instead, they would go out of their way to obstruct him." "So you don't think that Crouch was really a popular politician at all then?" asks Cindy. "No, I'm sure that he was immensely popular -- during the *war.* People love politicians like Crouch in times of war, because when people are frightened, they are willing to accept an unusually high degree of tyranny. In fact, if only they become frightened enough, then they actually embrace it. They *want* to submit themselves to a strong authoritarian figure. It makes them feel safe. Protected. You might even say," Elkins adds, with a small smile. "That they go all Barty Jr. in the Pensieve." "Daddy, save me?" suggests Eileen. "'Father, save me! Control me, dominate me, coerce me, break me, enslave me. Use your Unforgivable Curses on me. Do whatever you like with me, just don't let the scary *dementors* get me!'" Elkins takes a deep breath. "Crouch's relationship with his son," she states. "Reiterates on the personal level his political relationship with the wizarding world as a whole." "Elkins!" objects Cindy. "Voldemort and his Death Eaters were a very real and serious threat to the wizarding world!" "The Dementors were a very real and serious threat to young Crouch. They'd nearly killed him within the year." "But--" "It's a funny thing, though, you know," continues Elkins, "the way that dynamic tends to work. Once the immediate danger is past, then people do often start to feel rather differently about those they allowed to strip them of their liberties 'for their own good' while the threat was still active. They sometimes get a wee bit *resentful* about that. *Especially* if they come to suspect that their protector's motives were perhaps never really all that pure to begin with. We see that with Crouch Jr., I think. And I'd say that at Bagman's trial, we see it with the wizarding world as a body politic." "Ungrateful little brats," mutters Eileen. "Hating tyranny is *not* ingratitude, Eileen," snaps Elkins. "Hating tyranny is a moral *imperative!*" Elkins' hobby horse starts violently. She clutches at its mane to keep her balance, then leans forward to whisper soothingly into its ear. After a few moments, the horse settles. Elkins straightens slowly. "You know," she says, far more calmly now. "We've talked a bit in the past about the ways in which Crouch resembles Livius Junius Brutus, the one who sentenced his sons to death for treason. But I've always been rather partial to the *other* Brutus myself." "The one who assassinated Julius Caesar?" asks Cindy. "Yes. And...well, and actually, I think that Eileen knows *precisely* where this train of thought is leading me. In fact, I have a funny feeling that she's been trying to get me to follow her there for months now. Go on, Eileen. You sat an exam on the Julio- Claudians a while back, didn't you?" Eileen nods, smiling slightly. "Brutus," she tells Cindy. "Was rumoured to be Julius Caesar's own son." Elkins grins mirthlessly. "Sic semper tyrannis," she spits. Eileen eyes Elkins' hobby horse's wild eyes and bared teeth with due caution. "Now, why am I beginning to suspect, Elkins," she says. "That you and that horse of yours came here today not to praise Crouch, but to bury him?" "Don't be ridiculous, Eileen," Elkins replies lazily. "Why on earth would I want to do a silly thing like that? We both *know* how dangerous buried things can be. Don't we?" Cindy shakes her head. "There are times when people need to submit themselves to a bit of tyranny." "There are," agrees Elkins. "And then there are other times when they had really better not. Not if they know what's best for them. 'Harry, obedience is a virtue I need to teach you before you die.' Voldemort presents as a father figure in the graveyard, doesn't he? There's a reason that it pleased people to believe that Brutus must have been Caesar's natural son, you know. Tyrannicide and patricide are very closely conceptually linked. It seems to me that the parricide motif cuts both ways in GoF. Sometimes a little bit of parricide is a necessary thing." "In moderation," cautions Eileen. "In moderation. In *principle.* I think that the parricide motif of GoF is actually quite a bit like the immortality motif of the series as a whole. So long as it remains in the realms of the spiritual, or of the symbolic, or of the thematic, or of the abstract, then it's a good thing. It's only when you try to literalize it, to make it manifest in the physical world, that it becomes unremittingly negative." "So you're, uh, saying that you should never try to literalize your metaphors then?" asks Cindy, glancing uneasily about the Bay. "Not if you're in the Potterverse, no. Which we, fortunately enough, are not. But the question of tyranny and obedience in the books really brings us right back to that old question of rule-breaking in the series, doesn't it? In the HP books, the virtue of obedience is largely dependent upon the intentions of those giving the orders. Were Crouch's motives pure?" "Yes," answers Eileen instantly. Elkins closes her eyes. "That was a rhetorical question, Eileen," she says. "Obviously *I* don't think that Crouch's motives were pure. And that's my real problem with Crouch as Tragic Hero, you know. I'm not seeing any purity of motive there." "Why does that matter?" asks Cindy. Eileen sighs. "Because of Nobility of Stature," she explains. "Tragic heroes possess nobility of stature, and properly that ought to apply to virtue as well as to social standing. It's the very first question on the Tragic Hero Quiz." "And there's good reason for that," says Elkins. "It's really the question on which all the others devolve, because if you don't have nobility of stature, then it doesn't matter how many of the other criteria get filled. It still won't give you a tragic hero. So it's actually a very important question: do Crouch's choices reveal nobility of stature? Does he display any true nobility or purity of motive at all? Do you remember back in April, Eileen, when Talon DG suggested that when examining Crouch's character, we would be much better off looking at motivation than at action? He suggested that our interpretation of Crouch's character largely devolves on how we evaluate his motives in regard to his son's trial." Eileen nods. "I remember that. It was message #37574. He made a Gulf War parallel, which I'd really better not reproduce here..." "No, best not," Elkins agrees quickly. "Not a good time for it." "...and then he wrote: 'some motives are more noble than others.'" "Yes. And that's true. Some motives really *are* more noble than others. And if your means are bad, then your intentions had better be pretty darned pure. So what can we deduce about Crouch's motives, in light of what we have deduced about his political situation in the wake of Voldemort's fall? What was Point Five of your CRAB CUSTARD manifesto again?" "Point Five?" "Yes." Eileen pulls out her own yellowed copy of message #37476 and reads aloud: > 5. If Crouch had survived GoF, he would very likely have finally > been made Minister of Magic. With Voldemort back, he would not > have stayed silent, and people would have rallied behind him. "Yes," says Elkins. "You know, I think you're absolutely right about that? And I think that Crouch himself knew it, too. Remember when Sirius claimed that he had developed a mania for catching one last Dark Wizard? Because if only he could do that, then it might restore his lost *popularity?*" "This is turning into a 'Crouch sacrificed his son to his career ambition' argument, isn't it?" says Eileen gloomily. "Elkins, you *know* that's just a red herring in the plot!" "I know that you think it is. That was Point Four of the CRAB CUSTARD manifesto, wasn't it? > 4. Crouch did not sacrifice his son to his career ambition. This > seems to be a red herring in the plot. "But I am not so sure," says Elkins quietly. "I see plenty of indications in the text that Crouch was indeed in the habit of sacrificing people to his political ambitions, and that the Pensieve Four, guilty though they may have been, were indeed among the people so sacrificed, just like Sirius Black was. That his son happened to be among their number certainly did complicate things for him on the personal level -- and it also complicates things for us on the thematic level. But I think that we fall into error if we ignore what the Pensieve sequences are trying to show us about Crouch's political situation in the years following Voldemort's fall." "Your Crouch's Graying Hair Timeline," says Cindy flatly. "Yes, among other things. The Devil's in the details, Cindy. Important things *happen* at places where three roads meet. The Pensieve sequences suggest that Crouch was a war-time leader, one whose popularity was largely dependent upon the fear and paranoia of a war-time mentality. Absent that mentality, his grasp on the affection of the public begins to slip. Really, after Rookwood, he doesn't seem to have had much left in the way of big game, does he? He's been reduced to trying to prosecute hapless morons like Ludo Bagman, who are guilty of things like passing on information to old family friends. It's just sad, really. Not at all advantageous to Crouch. Not at all good for his *career.* Politicians like Crouch can only maintain their power for as long as they have an Enemy. Preferably one with a Capital E. "I think that the assault on the Longbottoms must have seemed like a golden opportunity for Crouch," says Elkins. "His department was under pressure to make an arrest. People were outraged. They were out for blood. The event put them right back into a war-time mentality. We see that at the sentencing, that angry hissing mob. If Ludo Bagman's trial had taken place in that atmosphere, do you really think that the jury would have dared thwart Crouch's recommendation? Sports celebrity or no, even if all he'd been doing was innocently passing along a few papers, I think that they would have been right behind Crouch in putting him away. The text even invites the reader to come to that conclusion by pointing out that the crowd applauds Crouch's sentence upon the Longbottom defendents just as it had applauded Bagman's acquittal in the previous scene. The Longbottom case put the public right back under Crouch's thumb, didn't it? It made them want him *back.* And he was right there for them when they did. Just look at the performance he gave them at his son's sentencing!" "Performance?" repeats Cindy incredulously. "You mean that eye bulging, spitting, ranting apoplectic *fit* that destroyed the poor man's career? He was furious, Elkins! Beside himself. He lost his temper. You're calling that a *performance?*" "Are you saying that was all an act?" asks Eileen doubtfully. "*All* an act?" Elkins shakes her head. "No. Not all. But--" "I think that Elkins just wants *everyone* in the Pensieve to have been putting on an act," Cindy snickers. "The Crouch family pageant." "Well, I *do* think that they were all putting on an act, to some extent," admits Elkins. "It *was* a bit of a Crouch family pageant, I'd say. Or maybe more like a Crouch family psychodrama. Charis said something quite like that once, when she wrote: > What the whole scene reminds me of more than anything else is a > really bad family row blown *way* out of proportion and set up > for public display. "And I absolutely agree with her. But I don't think that it was *all* an act, not on any of their parts. I'm sure that Mrs. Crouch was genuinely distraught. I'm sure that Crouch Jr. was genuinely terrified. And I'm sure that Crouch Sr. was genuinely furious with his son, as well as genuinely conflicted, and probably also feeling rather angry with the crowd for putting him in such an awful situation. I also agree with Charis that he was 'acting to himself' to a certain extent: psyching himself up, steeling his nerve, trying to divorce his feelings from what he felt that he had to be doing..." "That 'You Are Not My Son...'" Eileen begins. "Sure. Absolutely. But he was playing to his audience as well. He wasn't *just* 'acting to himself.' Crouch was playing the crowd." "You're just saying that because you don't like him," says Cindy. "No, I'm not," snaps Elkins irritably. "Look. That particular expression of rage, with all of the bellowing, and the eye bulging, and...well, doesn't that entire routine strike the reader as awfully *familiar?* Hadn't we seen all that somewhere before? Somewhere else, long before the Pensieve chapter came along?" Eileen nods. She flips through her copy of GoF, finds the page, and begins to read: "'And I trust you remember the many proofs I have given, over a long career, that I despise and detest the Dark Arts and those who practice them?" Mr. Crouch shouted, his eyes bulging again." "Yes. It's interesting, that, isn't it? You know, Eric Oppen once suggested that Crouch's plan to rescue his son from prison was already forming in his mind even at the time of the trial." "Eric Oppen is a mad subversive!" "True, but there's usually more than a touch of method to his madness, very much like there's more than a touch of method to the Crouch family's acting skills. I don't myself believe that Crouch had already planned to spring his son from Azkaban by the time of the trial, but I can certainly see how Eric might have come by that notion. The connection between that Pensieve scene and Crouch's scene with Winky at the QWC is indeed very suggestive." "His behavior throughout that scene *is* similar to his behavior at his son's sentencing," agrees Eileen. "It repeats quite a number of descriptive phrases. It's a parallel scene." "Yes. I'd say that it's quite clearly written as a parallel scene. So what do we make of that? Mr. Crouch is really not being altogether honest there at the QWC, is he? He's being quite devious, actually. And rather blackly ironic, too, with that 'despise and detest the Dark Arts and those who practice them' speech. After all, he's scrambling all over himself to deflect attention from his *Death Eater son.* The one he knows perfectly well is an unrepentent fanatical devotee of Voldemort. The one he has been harboring in his own home for the past ten years. The one who has just shot the Dark Mark into the sky. The one who is lying invisible and unconscious only a few feet away, while Crouch himself does everything in his power to cover for him. You said yourself that the scene at the QWC showcases Crouch's manipulative talents, Eileen." "I did say that," admits Eileen. "But--" "Just look at all of the other parallels as well. Crouch looks down at Winky with 'no pity in his gaze,' exactly as he will look at his son in the dock 'with pure hatred in his face.' In 'Padfoot Returns,' the text will beg us to compare the two situations, by having Sirius Black comment that Crouch Jr. could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time 'just like the house-elf.'" "Well, they're both scenes of denunciation, aren't they?" Cindy points out. "In both cases, Crouch is renouncing a member of his household who has disobeyed him." "Yes, but given that the two scenes *are* so obviously and blatantly parallel, doesn't that almost beg us to take a closer look at what is really happening in each of them? In both cases, Crouch is not *just* renouncing a disobedient member of his household. He is very specifically doing so for the benefit of an *audience.* And in a situation in which it is very much to his own personal advantage to put on a good show of hard-line severity to protect himself: his reputation, his position, his standing, his freedom, his fugitive son. At the QWC, he's ostensibly renouncing Winky because she disobeyed him but in actuality, his motives are quite a bit more complicated than that, aren't they? We know that his motives aren't nearly as simple as they first appear, because the author later provides us with the details which enable us to recognize the extent to which Crouch was manipulating that entire situation for his own personal advantage. The extent to which he was playing the crowd. The extent to which he was *acting.* You yourself cited this scene as proof that 'Barty Jr. inherited his talent for acting from his father,' Eileen." "I know," sighs Eileen. "I know that I did." "The author provides us with the information which enables us to recognize in retrospect the extent to which Crouch's act at the QWC was just that: an *act.* A strategy of misdirection. And also," adds Elkins meaningfully. "The extent to which it was a *sacrifice.*" Eileen opens her mouth. "As well as an attempted exorcism," Elkins adds quickly, looking at her. "I'll be getting to that in part six, Eileen, okay? Just bear with me here." Eileen closes her mouth and sighs. "So why does Crouch preside over a kangaroo court in the case of the Longbottoms' assailants?" asks Elkins. "Why does he allow violation of due process, conviction in the face of no evidence? Why does he behave precisely as he does at the trial? Just because he's furious with his son? Just because he can't brook disobedience from members of his household? Because he's outraged? Because he is convinced of the defendents' guilt? Because he hates dark wizardry?" She shakes her head firmly. "No," she says. "I don't think so. That's the superficial reading, but by drawing such a strong parallel between Crouch Jr's sentencing and Winky's denunciation at the QWC, I think that the text urges us to consider Crouch's more Slytherinesque and self-interested motives as well. "I can't agree that 'Crouch sacrificed his son to his career ambition' is a red herring," continues Elkins. "That's a gross over- simplification of a rather thematically-complex plotline, to be sure. It's hardly the whole story. But I can't see it as precisely a red herring because in fact, Crouch *did* have very strong political reasons to behave exactly as he did in regard to the Longbottom Affair, and the text itself encourages us to consider them: by showing us the trajectory of his post-war career in the Pensieve scenes, by drawing such a strong parallel between the scene at the sentencing and the scene at the QWC, and by giving us Sirius' comment about Crouch's 'mania' for catching just one last Dark Wizard -- to restore his lost *popularity.* "That witch-hunt atmosphere we see at the trial of the Pensieve Four was exactly what Crouch needed. It was what he thrived on. His political power depended on it. The Longbottom Incident was Crouch's one great chance to regain what he had lost when Voldemort fell. And he *seized* it. He exploited the opportunity. At his son's sentencing, we see him encouraging that atmosphere. He's really not doing a thing to combat the mob mentality in that courtroom, is he? On the contrary, he is actively fostering it, with all of his 'crime so heinous we've never seen the like,' and his 'resume the lives of violence you had led' talk. Really, he's spurring the crowd on, isn't he? He's whipping them up. He is *pandering,* pandering to all of their very worst instincts, and he is doing it deliberately, because that sort of mass hysteria was the source of Crouch's personal power. That atmosphere of hatred and anger and paranoia is precisely what the likes of Crouch batten upon. That witch hunt atmosphere was exactly what he *needed.*" Elkins pauses for breath. "But he overstepped," she concludes, with a kind of grim relish. "He overstepped, he miscalculated, he misjudged. And because his own son was involved, it all backfired on him. Evil oft will evil mar. Hoist by his own petard. Sic. Semper. Tyrannis." Elkins' pale hobby horse lays back its ears and whickers unpleasantly. Eileen glances at its bared teeth and narrowed eyes, and then up at Elkins, who bears very much the same expression. She takes a few wary steps backwards. "And Brutus was an honorable man," she says cautiously. "But so was Bartemius Crouch. You said so yourself, you know, Elkins. You did." "Did I? Did *I* say that? Did I really?" Elkins thinks for a moment, then sighs. "Yes," she admits. "I suppose that I did say that once, didn't I. Well, you know, Eileen, your Crouch Sr. Apologetics are really very persuasive. Dangerously so, at times, with all of those Tough and Steely Livian parallels that I find so hard to resist, and all of that lovely meta-thinking that you do so well. They're positively *fiendish,* they really are. Imperius- like, in fact. And I am vulnerable to Imperius, you know. I'm even worse than the Weasleys that way." "I sense a 'but' coming here," murmers Cindy. "Oh," Eileen whispers back, "you sense one of those coming too?" "*But.* There's one thing that they always seem to overlook. One absolutely vital aspect of Crouch's character that they never seem to touch upon, or even to acknowledge somehow. And it's a very curious omission, too, because it's a thing that strikes me as quite possibly Crouch Sr's most notable characteristic. I also feel that it is absolutely vital to the question of whether or not we can read him as a tragic hero." "Oh?" asks Eileen. "What's that?" Elkins smiles at her gently, almost pityingly. "Why," she says. "That he was the most appalling hypocrite, of course." ************* Elkins ********************************************************************* REFERENCES: Oedipus committed his act of parridice at a "trivium," a place where three roads meet. The CRAB CUSTARD Manifesto: message #37476 Crouch as Tragic Hero: message #45402 Also referenced or cited: #37574, #37769, #37781, #43010 and many of its downthread responses, #43447, #44636, #45662, #45693. One line of Eileen's dialogue swiped shamelessly from off-list correspondence. JOdel's message #45662 outlines her pet "the Pensieve Four conspired to bring down Crouch" speculation. Although this theory is obviously incompatable with my own interpretation of the timeline of events, I am nonetheless exceptionally fond of it. On How Dangerous Buried Things Can Be: for a discussion of the motif of burial (as well as parricide!) in GoF, see also message #38398. For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 02:18:03 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 02:18:03 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - The H Word (3 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47930 Three The H Word ------------- "How DARE you!" shrieks Eileen, so loudly that Elkins' hobby horse starts and shies away, and even Cindy jumps. "How *DARE* you call my Barty a hypocrite?" "Oh, come on, Eileen!" Elkins struggles to calm her horse. "You know perfectly well that he was a hypocrite. You must do, surely. I mean, *everybody* knows that about Crouch. It's right there on his resume and everything. 'Hypocrite.' Just one bullet point below 'Red Herring.'" "He is *not* a hypocrite!" Eileen turns to Cindy. "Cindy!" she complains. "Cindy, Elkins is using vituperative language again!" "Vituperative language?" Elkins sighs. "Oh, dear. Okay. Look. Would you prefer for me to call him 'integrity challenged?' I mean, would that help at all? Because if you like it better that way, I could--" "CINDY!" screams Eileen. Cindy shakes her head regretfully. "Gee, I don't know, Eileen," she says. "I don't really think that you can object to 'hypocrite' when applied to Crouch Sr. That's a bit like Pettigrew and 'coward,' isn't it? Or like Voldemort and 'Evil Overlord?' Or like Draco and 'racist?' They may be vituperative, and there may be a few brave and enlightened souls out there who leap forward to contest them, but they're hardly novel, or weird or wacky, or, uh, subversive, or anything like that. So I really do think that you're just going to have to live with it this time." "Sorry, Eileen," Elkins says, not actually sounding in the least bit contrite. "But you didn't really think that we were going to be able to have this conversation without the H Word ever once coming *up,* did you? I mean, did you really think that everyone was just going to sort of tacitly agree not to mention it? Sweep it under the rug, perhaps? Like the Wizarding World does everything having to do with Voldemort?" "Well, I--" "Look, even *Charis* knows that Crouch Sr. was a hypocrite. She wrote: > Barty Crouch Sr was acting every day of his life. He was the kind > of actor people can only be in everyday life: an expert of > disguising his true emotions and masquerading around as something > he's really not. His last decade is of course a prime example of > this, though I'd say he got into the habit long before that. "And unlike me, Charis really really *liked* Crouch Sr. Yet even she realizes that the man had a pretty serious, um, H Word problem." "But--" "I mean, Tough and Steely Livian Crouch? Crouch the Ruthless Opponent of Dark Wizardry? Crouch Who Protects the Wizarding World Even At Great Personal Cost? Crouch Who Does Not Let Any of the Four Loves Dictate His Actions? Crouch Who Despises And Detests The Dark Arts And Those Who Practice Them? That's just his *persona,* isn't it? It's his facade, his masquerade, his public face. But it's not really *him.* And as for Crouch as Brutus...well!" Elkins chuckles. "Crouch as Brutus," she repeats reprovingly. "*Really,* Eileen! I mean, really, now. Really. Honestly. *Crouch? * Crouch, of all people, as *Brutus?* Eileen flushes to the tips of her horned helmet. "That was his wife's fault," she mumbles. "Brutus had a wife. She's in that painting that you linked to in your Crouch as Tragic Hero Post. The Jacques-Louis David painting, _The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons._ She's *featured* in it." "Is she?" asks Cindy, with some interest. "Yes. She's there on the right hand side of the canvas, the brightest part, where the viewer's eye will naturally travel first. She's with her two daughters. Weeping. Swooning. Because you see, unlike Crouch, *her* husband really *did* have her sons put to death." "Okay, now I'm getting confused," says Cindy. "Which Brutus are we talking about here? Is this the man who assassinated Julius Caesar?" "No," Eileen sighs. "No, Elkins is talking about the *other* Brutus now. The ancestor of Julius Caesar's assassin. The Brutus who put his sons to death for treason. Brutus Sr., if you will." "Yes, Brutus Sr. Brutus the filicide," spits Elkins. "Not Brutus Jr., the alleged parricide. Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Roman Republic. He drove the wicked Tarquin kings out of Rome and ended the monarchy. And he was quite the hero for it, too. But then, just when everyone was starting to feel safe, something rather unfortunate happened..." Elkins smiles grimly. "Brutus' own two sons were caught with a group of conspirators who'd managed to hide their monarchist allegiance and avoid getting purged the first time around. Apparently they were trying to find the exiled kings and restore them to power." "Ah." Cindy nods. "Okay. I think that I'm really beginning to see what you mean about those parallels now." "Yeah. If you know the story, then they're quite striking. I've always assumed that JKR was quite consciously and deliberately echoing the story of Brutus with her Crouch subplot. We know that she's fond of legend and myth and history, and the parallels are just far too blatant to be accidental." "I think so too," agrees Eileen. "I said so back in April. I wrote: > The condemnation of Crouch Jr. seems to me to be a conscious > analogue of the famous old story about Brutus (not the one who > stabbed Caesar, but an ancestor) condemning his sons to death for > their treachery." Elkins nods. "Brutus' two sons were caught conspiring to restore the kings to power. Their father sentenced them to death for treason, thus demonstrating to all of Rome that even members of his family were not exempt from justice. He presided over their executions in person." "Livy says that Brutus looked right into his sons' eyes while the lictors cut off their heads," Eileen adds happily, tossing her bloody featherboas over one shoulder. "And he didn't even *flinch.*" "Lovely," mutters Cindy. "Brutus was Tough and Steely." "Indeed he was," Elkins agrees drily. "If also perhaps a tad psychotic by contemporary standards. He was not, however, very much at all like our Mr. Crouch. For one thing, he actually followed *through,* which Crouch rather spectacularly did not. Brutus saw it done. He really did put his sons to death. What he did *not* do," she says. "Was to sentence his sons to death while the eyes of the public were on him, only then to turn around and smuggle them out from under the axes of the lictors to lock them away in his wine cellar one year later, when nobody was watching him." Elkins shakes her head. "Crouch as Brutus," she repeats. "*Honestly,* Eileen!" "I did say that I thought that Brutus was the model for Crouch only to an *extent,*" Eileen points out. "It's tragic irony." "Oh, it's irony, all right. But irony to what purpose? Crouch *is* doing a Brutus there in the Pensieve scene. There's no question about that to my mind. No one familiar with the story could possibly not be reminded of it while reading that chapter. But that just serves to *subvert* Livian Crouch, doesn't it? Because later on, we realize that Crouch was just *playing* Brutus there. He was play- acting Brutus. He was 'doing a Brutus.' He's not a Brutus, but he plays one in the Pensieve. It's all an act. A sham. A show. Crouch was Brutus like his son was Moody." "But--" begins Eileen. "And there's another way in which Crouch was not like Brutus too, you know," says Elkins. "Livy wrote that the public tried to prevail on Brutus to *pardon* his sons. At the trial, the proconsuls were begging him to spare them. The people were clamoring for him to let them off the hook. The attendants at the execution couldn't even stand to watch them being decapitated; they wept, they turned away. Not very much like that jeering savage mob at Crouch's son's trial, that's for sure. A whole lot more like Ludo Bagman's jury, actually. Except that *Brutus* took a strong stand *against* the popular opinion. Where do we ever see Crouch doing that?" "Well..." "JKR's nod to the story of Brutus is certainly ironic," concludes Elkins. "But the purpose of that irony, as I see it, is to underscore the extent to which Crouch isn't really Tough and Steely Livian Crouch at all. Tough and Steely Livian Crouch is all an act. It's a red herring. It's both the author's misdirection and Crouch's own. And at the end, when it is revealed to the reader as such, that only serves to reinforce and to strengthen our appreciation of Crouch's true nature. Of the profound depths of his moral *hypocrisy.* In fact," she adds thoughtfully. "JKR plays much the same game with Livian Crouch as she does with Ends-Over-Means Crouch, doesn't she?" "You don't see Crouch as representing ends over means?" Cindy asks, frowning. "No, I do see him as representing ends over means. But I think that the text is really very underhanded in its approach there. In fact..." Elkins glances around the Bay nervously. She lowers her voice. "In fact," she whispers. "I think that JKR *cheats.*" "Cheats?" "Yes. First she uses Crouch to encourage the reader to consider the value of prioritizing the ends over the means. But then she stacks the deck against that position by revealing her proponent of ends-over-means to be, in the end, a self-interested hypocrite. She subverts the moral equation by exposing Crouch as a fraud: his ends are in truth no better than his means, and by the end of the story, he's been positively mired in moral failing. And that *is* cheating, if you ask me. It pulls the rug out from under the entire moral dilemma. It's really terribly unfair. In fact, if I were Salazar Slytherin, I think that I'd be all set to *sue* J.K. Rowling! For defamation of character!" Cindy considers the matter for a few minutes. "You'd lose," she advises gravely. "Would I?" Elkins shrugs. "Oh, well. What can you do? We all know what House the *author* would have been sorted into, don't we? Talk about ends and means! Authors are just awful that way. Those cunning folk use any means to achieve their rhetorical ends." "Look who's writing," snaps Eileen. "You and your Crouch's Graying Hair Timeline! You and your H Word!" "Well, I couldn't not bring up the H Word here, Eileen," says Elkins apologetically. "I really couldn't. Because the H Word is essential to how I perceive Crouch's narrative function, as well as to how I view his motives. It's the reason that I can't accept a reading of Crouch as a tragic hero. He just doesn't have any nobility of stature. Let's go back to what Talon DG said in April, shall we? About Crouch's motivations?" ====================================================================== On April 8, in message #37574, Talon DG wrote: > Where I think you might get discussion over Crouch's character > would be over *motivation*, not action. He then went on to describe the two major branches of interpretation of Crouch's motives in regard to the trial of the Longbottoms' assailants: > If he wanted to send a message to the Death Eaters ("Nobody is > exempt from justice, not even my son") well then, good on him. > He's setting the example at great personal cost. > > But if he just wants to look "tough on crime" for political ends, > and is sitting on the tribunal because it makes him look really, > really really tough... well... that is more than a little on the > callous side, isn't it? Not the sort of guy you want in charge, > is it? In short, is Crouch self-sacrificing or self-serving? Is he a hard-liner, or is he a hypocrite? I think that he's a little bit of both, myself. But mainly the latter. I also think that this is precisely what makes analysis of his character so very complicated. It is difficult to force Crouch into the rather confining mold of "archetypical tragic hero with a single identifiable hamartia," IMO, because he serves a number of different functions in the text, all of them on slightly different levels. On the ethical level, he invites the reader to contemplate the moral conundrum of ends versus means. On the moral level, he stands in as an exemplar of hypocrisy. On the political level, he serves as a double to Cornelius Fudge: as Fudge exploits the peace-time mentality for his own personal gain, seeks to perpetuate that mentality when it is inappropriate for him to do so, and falls into the twin political errors of appeasement and denial, so Crouch exploited the war-time mentality for his own personal gain, sought to perpetuate that mentality when it was inappropriate for him to do so, and fell into the twin political errors of tyranny and reactionism. On the thematic and symbolic level, I read Crouch as the Devouring or Tyrannical Father: he stands for the denial of individuation and the negation of freedom of choice. And on the psychological level, he seems to me to represent solipsism, or perhaps narcissism: the inability to recognize the existence of other people as independent from oneself and ones own desires. Unsurprisingly, this proliferation of roles leads to confusion, as people desperately try to determine precisely where Crouch went wrong. Did his error lie in sending his son to Azkaban in the first place, or did it lie in rescuing him? Was his dismissal of Winky indicative of hubris, or of a far more Machiavellian brand of ruthlessness? Is he too soft or too hard? Is he driven by his passions, or is he a scheming manipulator? Did the blood in the unfortunate Mr. Crouch's veins run too hot or too cold? The situation is further confused, IMO, by the fact that some of Crouch's dramatic functions are filled more by his *persona* than by his person. Crouch is a hypocrite who presents one face to the public, a different face in his private affairs. For most of the novel, the reader is only aware of Crouch's public face; his true hypocrisy is only revealed at the end of the book. This means that he can easily fulfill two entirely contradictory sets of narrative functions simultaneously. His role as the representative of ends over means, for example, belongs properly more to his public persona than it does to his private person; that it stands in opposition to his role as an exemplar of hypocrisy does not really matter in terms of his narrative *function.* That function is still fulfilled, even if in retrospect we can determine that Crouch's role as its representative was actually a red herring in terms of the plot. ----------- Eileen's analyses of Crouch have generally taken his ethical and political roles as their starting point. Crouch, she says, is a fanatical opponent of Dark Wizardry. He is motivated not so much by personal ambition as by the desire to protect the wizarding world from Voldemort and his followers. She writes: > Nobility in tragedy also refers to virtue, however, and Crouch has > that as well going for him. Tragic heroes do terrible things and > Crouch does terrible things, but they have a lot of things going for > them as well. Crouch is on the good side. He fights against > Voldemort and protects people against him. He does this at great > risk to himself. Crouch's flaw, she says, derives from his ruthless privileging of the ends over the means. > No, the key to Crouch's character (and I'm sure Sirius would > ultimatley agree) can be found in PS/SS. > > "Those cunning folk use any means // To achieve their ends." > > Before GoF, that ethic is limited to the bad guys. GoF's moral > complexity stems from the fact that Crouch Sr. is introduced to > employ that ethic on the good side. Eileen sees Crouch's _hamartia_ in his willingness to resort to extreme measures in order to achieve his goal of protection, and in his corresponding willingness to overlook the rights of the individual and to refuse to allow either love or charity to influence his actions. She likens him to Brutus, who condemned his sons to death for treason, thus proving that his devotion to the communal ethics of law and state outweighed his devotion to the far more personal ones of filial devotion and blood ties. Where Eileen sees Crouch as falling into error is in his failing to place the appropriate checks on the actions that he is willing to take to further his admirable goals, thereby riding roughshod over the rights of others. She writes: > I see here the tragic flaw asserting itself. The belief that people > should do as he disposed him, that he did not have the > responsibility to treat them as people first and foremost. . . . > Barty Crouch Sr. did not let love (any of the four loves) dictate > his relationships with others. He used people and therein lies his > downfall. I agree that this is Crouch's great flaw. It is a failing that applies across the board, both to his public and his private personae; indeed, it may well be the one thing that unifies every one of his narrative roles. It also characterizes every last one of his "fatal errors," the poor choices he makes which lead to his destruction. If I were to try to identify Crouch's hamartia, I would have to cite his unwillingness or inability to recognize the existence of other people as independent entities, and his corresponding disregard for their volition and their autonomy. Where I disagree, however, is in seeing precisely the same connection that Eileen has suggested between Crouch's passion for denying others their freedoms and his prioritization of ends over means. Traditionally, as I see it, the sin of ends-over-means thinking involves the sacrifice of individual rights for the common weal, or for some other widely recognized "Greater Good." If we accept that this is indeed the cause of Crouch's hamartia, then we must propose that his motives -- his ends -- are the protection of the wizarding world from Dark Wizardry. In his desire to protect the WW, he goes overboard and neglects to maintain the checks to his behavior that we consider necessary to moral integrity. Now, if this were really the case, then I would expect to see a certain pattern to Crouch's fatal errors. Ideally, the text should show us Crouch erring out of his desire to protect the WW from harm. There should be some consistency to the specific ends for which he is shown as willing to use his unacceptable (Unforgivable?) means. But in fact, the text doesn't show us this at all. Crouch's acts of disregard for others are not taken to achieve noble or self- sacrificing ends at all, nor do they very often bring "great risk" to him in any way that he could reasonably have anticipated. On the contrary, they always seem to me to be taken to protect Crouch himself, or to bring him some other form of personal advantage, satisfaction or benefit. -------- Eileen listed what she sees as Crouch's fatal errors: > Crouch Sr. chooses his downfall at several points throughout the > story. First and perhaps most seriously, he chooses to authorize the > Unforgivable Curses on suspects. Then, there is his "I Have No Son!" > which leads thematically to his rejection and destruction at the > hands of his son. He then chooses to flout the law by rescuing his > son from Azkaban and putting him under the Imperius curse. At last, > he dismisses Winky, the only protection he would have had against > Voldemort. I think that this is an excellent list. To it, I would also add: - He casts a memory charm on Bertha Jorkins. This is a chicken which will come home to roost when Jorkins' damaged mental state leaves her vulnerable to abduction by Pettigrew. In effect, Crouch's disregard for others is what eventually leads Voldemort straight to his front door. - He encourages and panders to mob mentality at his son's trial by presiding over a kangaroo court, pushing for conviction in spite of there being no solid evidence against the defendents. This is really part and parcel of Crouch's overall political approach. It is linked both to his authorization of the Unforgivable Curses and to his denunciation of his son. I see it as leading thematically both to his son's poor choices and to Crouch's own eventual use as Voldemort's tool. - His treatment of his son post-Azkaban. His choices here are what forge his son into the blade that will eventually kill him. ---------- I agree with Eileen that Crouch's fatal errors are all indicative of a profound disregard for the rights and volition of others. What I don't see, though, is how they reflect the motives that Eileen has ascribed to him: the desire to protect the wizarding world, even at great personal cost. In fact, I am unconvinced that a single one of Crouch's actions are undertaken for any Greater Good at all. Rather, all of the evidence seems to me to suggest that Crouch is consistently driven by selfish motives: sometimes by the desire to protect himself and his own, sometimes by the desire to increase his own personal standing, sometimes by his desire to uphold his image -- but most often (and by far the most damningly) by his apparent need to control and to dominate those around him, to use coercion in his attempts to force others to serve as mirrors to his own ego. ===================================================================== "And that's my problem with Crouch as Tragic Hero," says Elkins, looking around. "I just don't see him as possessing the requisite nobility of stature. When you actually take a close look at his actions, and particularly at his fatal errors, there's always a disconnect between his public persona and his private person, between his ostensible motives and his real ones. "Why does he play the role of Barty Crouch, Fanatical Hard-liner, whenever he is in the public eye? Why does he engage in human rights violations? Why does he encourage mass hysteria? Why does he rescue his son from Azkaban and then keep him a prisoner of the Imperius Curse for over ten years? Why does he try to erode his son's sense of self? Why does he obliviate Bertha Jorkins? Why does he dismiss Winky? In fact, none of these fatal errors has the slightest connection to any action undertaken for a greater good. They aren't the actions of someone dedicated to protecting and serving the wizarding world, even at great personal cost. Rather, they are the actions of someone dedicated to protecting and serving *himself.* Often at enormous cost to the wizarding world." "Oh, I *contest* that assertion!" cries Eileen. Elkins smiles wearily. "Well...yes," she agrees. "I rather thought that you might. How else do you think that this post got so incredibly long? Don't worry. I'll defend it. "But for now, let me just say that I think that the text does set up Crouch initially as a model of Livian rectitude, as well as a proponent of ends over means. But by the end of the novel, we've been led to the understanding that in fact, Crouch's ostensible motives were all show. He wasn't the ruthless opponent of Dark Wizardry that he pretended to be. That's the *real* red herring in the Crouch subplot, if you ask me: this notion that Crouch's means may have been bad, but his ends were good. Once you actually take a close look at his fatal errors, they're nearly all motivated by self-interest. "Now, a character who consistently falls into error while acting in accordance with self-interest can certainly be sympathetic," says Elkins. "He can be likable. He can inspire pathos. He can even possess a kind of wild heroic grandeur, like some of Shakespeare's better villains do. But in order to fulfill the criteria of the archetypical tragic hero, I think that a character really needs to exhibit some degree of purity of motive, and I'm just not seeing that in Crouch Sr. I don't really know if I think that a character who is so clearly demarked as a hypocrite *can* serve as a tragic hero. Hypocrisy is not precisely a tragic flaw. So while I think that you can make a very strong case for Crouch as a sympathetic shades-of- grey redeemed-in-death villain, I just can't read him as a tragic hero, because to my mind, he doesn't make it over that very first hurdle: Nobility of Stature." "But he fits the mold so *well!*" insists Eileen. "Well, he may seem to," says Elkins. "At first glance. At first glance. But then, he seems to fit the Livian mold too, at first glance, doesn't he? He *seems* to be a Brutus. But in the end, that analogue just turns out to be irony. These patterns are placed in the text only in order to be undermined later on. They're authorial misdirection used for ironic effect. They're...well, actually, they're...they're..." Elkins hesitates. Eileen glares at her. "They're *what?*" she demands. Elkins glances over to the CRAB CUSTARD table. She sighs. "Red herring mousse," she says. ************************ Elkins ********************************************************************** REFERENCES: This post is continued from part two. It is primarily a response to message #45402 ("Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero"), but also references or quotes message numbers 37476 ("The CRAB CUSTARD Manifesto"), 37574, 37769, 43447, and 45693. Link to "The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons:" http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/brutus.jpg For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 02:30:07 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 02:30:07 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Midnight In the Golden Wood (4 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47931 [Note: Even for a TBAY post, this one puts an unusually large number of words into Eileen's mouth for the purposes of facilitating the fictional debate. While I have at least tried to base my TBAY! Eileen's opinions in the, er, well, in the canon of her past posts, so to speak, I may well have ascribed to her here some arguments and beliefs which are not in fact really her own. If so, then I offer my most sincere and Averyesque apologies.] Four Midnight In the Golden Wood ------------ An unexpected spate of winter sunlight has drawn a number of visitors to Theory Bay. Cindy has moved down the promenade to set up her own booth, where she has been doing a very brisk business in Rookwood thongs. Still no one has stopped by Eileen's table to try a bite of her CRAB CUSTARD, though, and Eileen is beginning to look decidedly put out. She pulls her Lucky Kari helmet off of her head and runs her fingers irritably through her hair. "I really don't see how you can claim that none of Crouch Sr's actions were motivated by noble concerns, Elkins," she says, glaring at a passing couple strolling hand in hand down the promenade dressed in matching BABEMEISTER t-shirts. "That's just not fair. It's not even defensible! It's completely unjust!" "Is it?" Elkins yanks at her reins in a futile attempt to keep her high pale hobby horse from nibbling at the bottommost edge of the CRAB CUSTARD banner. "Where do we ever see Crouch falling into error while acting out of concern for the protection of the wizarding world? Actually, he's usually putting the wizarding world at *risk,* isn't he? When he's not actually doing it outright harm. And he does so to serve himself." "How can you say that?" "Well, because it's true. Let's just take a look at his errors, shall we? Why did Crouch rescue his son from Azkaban?" "Oh, now, come *on!*" protests Eileen. "Play fair, will you? I've already admitted that it wasn't very noble of Barty to rescue his son from prison. That was why I called it dramatic irony: it was an *exception* to the general rule. I said as much to Cindy. I told her: > I said that he never let love define his relationships. But I was > wrong. Just this one time, he did. And look where that got him. "So I've already acknowledged that he wasn't acting in the public interest there. And he wasn't acting in accordance with his usual Livian principles, either. He was acting out of love for his wife. But surely with a Bleeding Heart like yours, you can sympathize with that, can't you, Elkins?" "Oh, that one was an exception to the rule, was it?" asks Elkins, pointedly ignoring the question. "I see. Well, all right then. How about the others? He kept his son prisoner in his own home under the Imperius Curse for ten years, even though he knew that his son was both unrepentant and dangerous. That was self-serving, and it put the entire wizarding world at risk. Why did he dismiss Winky? Well, we've a host of motives to choose from there, but every last one them is self-serving, and it was a decision that left him without the resources to continue to keep a close guard on his son. Hence, it put the entire wizrding world at risk. Then there's that nasty Obliviate charm he cast on Bertha Jorkins. An *utterly* self-serving action, and one that put the entire wizarding world at risk. And then--" "But all of those errors arise organically out of his initial error of rescuing his son," objects Eileen. "Which I've already *admitted* hadn't anything to do with the common good." "But those are the vast majority of his fatal errors, Eileen." "Yes, but I'm not altogether certain that they're really his most serious ones. How about his political errors? His political errors were--" "Motivated by self-interest," says Elkins flatly. "Only if you insist on ascribing the worst possible motives to him! Only if you refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt! I think that Crouch's political errors *were* well-motivated. Even Sirius suggested as much, and Sirius really hated Barty!" "Sirius suggested that Crouch *might* have been well-motivated," Elkins corrects her. "At *first.* Like maybe when he was still working in the mail room or something. But all right. Let's take a look at what we know about Crouch's political behavior." Elkins takes a deep breath. "During a time of war," she begins. "Crouch rose 'quickly' through the ranks of the Ministry until he had become the head of the DMLE. In that position, he then changed the rules to allow the Aurors, a body of enforcers who seem to have been answerable to him personally in his role as the head of the DMLE, to kill at their discretion and to use torture and mind control against the citizenry. He seized unilateral powers for himself, many of them functions which would seem ordinarily to be reserved for the Minister of Magic. These actions made him popular. He had 'supporters' who were 'clamoring for him to take over.'" She takes another deep breath, and then continues: "He pandered to mob mentality when it served his own political ends, as in the Longbottom case, yet he tried to counteract it when it did not, as in the Bagman case. He encouraged the public in just the kind of paranoiac and vindictive mass hysteria which also, by amazing coincidence, tends to cause people to favor leaders who happen to fit Crouch's exact political profile. He authorized 'very harsh measures' to be used against people Sirius defines as 'Voldemort's supporters...'" Elkins pauses, frowning. "What the hell is a 'supporter,' anyway?" she demands. "We all know what a Death Eater is, but precisely what qualifies someone as a 'supporter?' Really, a 'supporter' can be just about anyone you want it to be, can't it?" She shakes her head. "Gee, I don't know, Eileen," she says. "Now why don't I find myself believing that Crouch's motives were pure, or that he really did have the protection of the populace as his chief concern? I have no idea. I must just be a mean nasty old *cynic,* I guess." "You've already conceded that he wasn't Stalin, Elkins," Eileen reminds her. "Well, he wasn't Stalin. I'm not saying that he was Stalin. His measures never seem to have reached the level of dekulakization. Nor am I saying that he was *totally* power-mad. He didn't actually try to stage a coup. When his bid for power failed, he stepped down gracefully enough. But you don't have to be either a Stalin or an insurrectionist to be a seriously Evil wizard, do you? You don't have to be either a Stalin or an insurrectionist to be motivated by self-interest, or to be all too willing to harm the public that you're supposed to be serving in order to cement your own personal political control." "But you're only *assuming* that he was self-interested!" "Well, of course I'm assuming that he was self-interested! Why on earth shouldn't I? Honestly, now, Eileen, if all of the things listed above were just about all you knew about some real world politician, then would you assume that the protection of the populace was his driving motivation? That he was 'employing the ethic of ends over means for the forces of good?' That he was truly well-intended, if possibly a little misguided? That he was self-sacrificing, rather than self-serving? Really? Honestly? Because I have to say that I wouldn't. Not without some *very* compelling evidence pointing in that direction, at any rate. And I'm just not seeing that evidence anywhere when it comes to Mr. Crouch." "But Elkins," says Eileen. "Crouch *isn't* a real world politician. He's a fictional politician in a fantasy novel. He exists in a world in which the blacks are a whole lot blacker, and the lines far more brightly drawn, than they are in our own. Just think of what he was up against!" "'Desperate times call for desperate measures,' Eileen?" Elkins shakes her head. "But that's just what politicians *always* claim when they first start authorizing their enforcers to use torture and other such 'measures' against the populace, isn't it? They always say that they're doing it to stem the tide of a terrorist or an insurrectionist threat. That's just the Usual Wicked Rationalization. It's like 'the Devil made me do it!' or 'I was just obeying orders,' or 'But look at how she was *dressed*!' It's a total cliche. And it's also a myth: those sorts of measures are utterly ineffective against terrorist or insurrectionist threats. You don't really think that the politicians *themselves* believe that when they say it, do you? They don't. They know full well that those measures are ineffective. That's not why they're authorizing them. When politicians authorize things like torture, summary execution without formal charge, and detention without trial, it's never really about protecting the populace at all. That's not the real function of those things. Their function is to cement the political power of those who control their use." "Maybe in reality," Eileen concedes. "But the Potterverse *isn't* reality. Do you remember what I said about the Death Eaters, back in September? I said: > You know what first strikes me about the whole set-up. The Death > Eaters are every dictator's dream conspiracy. They're ordinary > citizens who have infiltrated every branch of the government. They > can strike anywhere at anyone. They remind me very much of the sort > of conspiracies Stalin liked to pretend he was facing. Except for > once, it's real. So, I really don't know who to compare Crouch to. > That sort of thing doesn't really exist in real life. "With the Death Eaters, Rowling asks us to believe in a situation that is in our world impossible. So it may not make all that much sense to try to read Crouch as a real world politician. He's not one. He was facing down a situation that one doesn't face in real life. Can you blame him if he went a little overboard?" Elkins frowns. "Whatever happened to the Golden Wood?" she demands. "Whatever happened to 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men?'" "That applies to real world *ethics,*" Eileen explains patiently. "But not necessarily to real world motivess, or even to real world efficiency. I've already conceded that Crouch made the wrong decisions. I did list his authorization of the UCs as the most serious of his fatal errors, didn't I? I'm just saying that you can't necessarily look to real world precedent to defend the notion that in the Potterverse, his measures might not actually have been *effective,* and that he couldn't therefore have sincerely believed that he was doing some good with them. After all," she continues. "This is a world in which magic is real. In which Phoenix tears can heal fatal wounds. In which the power of maternal sacrifice can deflect the killing curse. Things in the Potterverse are fabulous, mythic. Larger than life. So I think that we may not be expected to read too much realpolitik into Crouch's political actions. It's a moral dilemma -- ends and means -- drawn in broad strokes. To privilege the ends over the means to the extent that Crouch did is still morally wrong, even in the Golden Wood. But I think that we might want to consider the possibility that in the Golden Wood, at least, his means really could have genuinely facilitated those ends to which they were being applied. Barty Crouch Sr. certainly did go overboard, but I think that he had at least booked passage on the right *ship.*" "Well...okay," says Elkins. "But where's the canon?" Eileen blinks at her. "What?" "The *canon.* Where's the canon? I mean, if I'm understanding your reading correctly, then I can't help but feel that it is asking me to overlook an awful lot of things. First, it asks me to overlook the way that things work in real life. Generally speaking, I prefer not to throw out my real world expectations in favor of fantastical ones unless I see some evidence that it's appropriate, evidence like a pattern of genre convention, for example. But the pattern in the HP books tells me that I probably *shouldn't* be doing that when it comes to the Ministry and its attendent plotlines." "What do you mean?" "Well, much of the Potterverse is indeed fabulous, mythic. But it doesn't seem to me that the Ministry and its attendant plotlines are generally portrayed that way at all. As I read them, the Ministry plotlines are simplified, but they don't strike me as at all fabulous or politically naive. In fact, they're generally rather stunningly hard-nosed, which I suspect is one of the main reasons that the series' adult readers enjoy discussing them so much. Nothing *else* about the Ministry plotlines reflects political naivete on the part of the authorial voice, and that makes it really difficult for me to read Crouch's 'harsh measures' in quite as ingenuous or as allegorical a light as you suggest." "Well..." "And then it asks me to overlook Crouch's thematic associations." "His thematic associations?" "Yes. In GoF, Crouch isn't associated with motifs and subplots that deal with protection or with self-sacrifice. Rather, he seems to be associated with all of the motifs and subplots that focus thematically on issues of coercion, control, domination, and the negation of volition." "That's meta-thinking," points out Eileen. "Damn straight it is!" declares Elkins proudly. "And it's some right *fine* meta-thinking, too! Do you have a problem with meta- thinking, Eileen?" "Me?" Eileen laughs. "Are you kidding?" "Good. Just checking. So there are all of these thematic indications that I need to overlook as well. And then, there's also the fact that the text so firmly establishes Crouch as a hypocrite. When you look back on the story in retrospect, you see that his ostensible motives always turn out to be in some way deceptive. His ostensible motives aren't the same as his real ones. So it's hard not to draw from that the conclusion that his purported political motives, just like all of his other purported motives, were not actually what they on the surface appeared to be. "So," Elkins concludes decisively. "I think that if we want to propose a reading that goes against all of these indications, we really need to find some evidence for it in the text. Evidence sufficiently weighty to override all of the things that are pushing *against* a reading of Crouch as genuinely motivated by the desire to protect the wizarding world and to serve the populace. So. Is there any?" "Any..." "Any evidence. Anything in the text to indicate that this time around, Crouch's purported motives and his actual ones actually did synch up? Any evidence that his political actions *weren't* just a case of The Usual Wicked Rationalization, but instead were sincerely well-intended means-to-achieve-ends decisions?" There is a long silence. "What does the text actually tell us about Crouch and his harsh measures?" Elkins prompts. "Is there any evidence that Crouch's measures were actually *effective* means to his purported end? That they actually worked? That they did the slightest bit of good against Voldemort and his Death Eaters?" Eileen thinks this over. "Well, what about Moody?" she asks. "He brought more Death Eaters to justice than any other Auror." "Yes, and is also said to have *avoided* the use of the Unforgivable Curses," Elkins reminds her. "Now why would the text have gone to all the trouble to point that out, unless it wanted to lead the reader to the understanding that 'harsh' and 'effective' are not necessarily synonymous?" There is another long silence. "Dumbledore seems to have cared about Crouch," says Eileen. "He showed concern for him at the beginning of Book Four, after Harry's name came out of the Goblet, when poor Barty was looking so ill. His concern was only 'mild' and therefore not linked to some idea in his head that that this might be linked to Voldemort. He was worried about Crouch, the same way I feel he is worried abut Harry, Snape, and others." "Yes, well." Elkins smiles. "Dumbledore. We can't all be Dumbledore, can we? Dumbledore seems to like Fudge well enough too, on the purely personal level. Even at the end of Book Four, when he's talking Tough to him, he still does so with a good deal of compassion. I'm sure that if Fudge were looking poorly, Dumbledore would exhibit similar concern. But we know that he doesn't approve of Fudge's political decisions. We also know that he considers Fudge to be self-interested. Blinded by the love of the office he holds, right? That Dumbledore can feel concern for Crouch as a human being doesn't mean that he ever believed Crouch's political decisions to be either effective or even necessarily all that well-intended." "And besides," she adds, as an afterthought. "Dumbledore didn't trust Crouch." "How do you know that?" "He maintained his own network of spies during the war. He vouched for Snape to the tribunal only after the war had ended. So he obviously wasn't cutting Crouch into his plans during the conflict itself, which does seem to indicate that he didn't trust him very much. In fact, it's just what he seems to be planning on doing with Fudge now, isn't it? He doesn't seem to be planning on trying to get the man out of office, or anything like that. He's just going to try to work around him. Very much like he seems to have worked around Crouch during the war." There is another long silence. "Actually," Elkins says. "We don't have the slightest bit of evidence for the supposition that Crouch's measures ever served a single living soul other than Crouch himself, or even that he ever believed that they would. Do we." "If it hadn't been for Crouch's measures..." Eileen begins. "...we have no idea what would have happened. There's no evidence either way. Maybe Crouch's measures really did do some good. Or maybe they only served to exacerbate the conflict. Remember when Pip suggested that her Ever-So-Evil Death Eating Mrs. Crouch was likely the person to talk her husband into encouraging the use of the UCs in the first place? She said: > If you want your side to fight to the death...then encouraging the > other side to kill/torture upon capture is a *really* good plan. "Really, when you think about it, Crouch's measures could well have prolonged the conflict." "Or they could have been the only thing staving Voldemort off for eleven years," says Eileen. "Could be," admits Elkins. "The text doesn't tell us either way. But while we are not given the slightest indication in the text that Crouch's measures were at all useful or effective when it came to fighting dark wizardry, there is something for which we are told that they *were* effective. Something else. Something very important." Elkins looks at Eileen. "We are told," she says meaningfully. "That they made Crouch *popular.*" "*Sirius* says that! And he had a *grudge* against Crouch!" "Yes, yes, Sirius had a grudge against Crouch. Who doesn't? Even *I* have a grudge against Crouch, and I haven't even had twelve years in Azkaban to dwell on his iniquities. But do you really doubt Sirius when he says that Crouch's harsh measures made him popular with a substantial portion of the populace? I see no reason to doubt him when he says that. 'Desperate measures' rhetoric usually *does* prove popular with a frightened populace, doesn't it?" Eileen thinks about this, then slowly shakes her head. "Oh, I don't know, Elkins," she says. "I think that Crouch's political errors really *did* originate from his desire to protect the world from Voldemort. He went overboard in privileging the ends over the means, but his ends were basically good. He just got carried away because--" "Because he despised and detested the Dark Arts and those who practiced them." Elkins rolls her eyes. "Yes, yes. We *know.* Crouch tells us so *himself,* after all. At the QWC. In a public place. In front of many witnesses. When he is feeling personally threatened. And while he is busily engaged in doing everything within his power to deflect attention away from his mad, dangerous Death Eater son. His son, on whom he himself had been practicing Dark Arts for over a decade." "Are you saying that Crouch *didn't* hate Dark Wizardry?" "Well, I think that he very badly wanted to *believe* that he hated dark wizardry. Although for someone with such an apparent lack of scruple about the Unforgivable Curses to claim status as a despiser of Dark Arts is...well, let's just say that Crouch's self-professed hatred of the Dark Arts has always struck me as a classic case of protesting too much. I do think that Crouch *wanted* to believe that he hated Dark Wizardry. I think that he wanted that very badly. I'd say that he was absolutely desperate to believe that about himself. But I don't think that his primary motivations had anything to do with protecting the wizarding world from Voldemort, or from dark wizards." "That's just because you're biased against him," says Eileen. "It's because you're a Dove, and you don't like Hawks. That's all this really comes down to, Elkins." "No," sighs Elkins. "It's not, you know. It's really not. I do have some bias against Hawks, it's true, but that's not what this is about. Like I said before, I'm really not crazy about the way that JKR uses Crouch in regard to the ends/means question. I think that it's cheating. I'd much rather have seen him portrayed as a truly sincere and honorable proponent of ends over means. But I just can't accept him as such, partly because of all of the factors I mentioned before, but also because when I look at his political actions, I see some very troubling discrepancies. Discrepancies between how Crouch behaves when he is in the public eye, and how he behaves when he is not. And this part *isn't* meta-thinking. Just look at what the man *does!*" ====================================================================== Barty Crouch, Fanatical Hard-Liner? That's certainly Crouch's public persona. It's his reputation. It's the face that he shows to the world, and it is how Sirius, who only knew Crouch as a public figure, chooses to characterize him in "Padfoot Returns." But I see some rather interesting incongruities between the way that Crouch behaves when the public spotlight is on him, and the way he behaves when it is not. Take Karkaroff's hearing, for example. This hearing would seem to have been closed to the general public. The cameras, so to speak, were off. Now, Karkaroff is a Dark Wizard. He is a Death Eater. He is professing repentence, but only after some months spent in Azkaban suffering under the dementors. There's duress involved, to say the least, and his contrition does not come across as terribly sincere. Furthermore, if Moody is to be believed, Karkaroff's crimes include torture, and torture not only of Muggles, but of wizards as well. Karkaroff says of Dolohov that "I saw him torture countless Muggles and -- and non-supporters of the Dark Lord." Moody's dissatisfied mutter ("And helped him do it") strongly implies that Karkarov was not merely an accessory or a witness to these crimes. He was an active participant. In short, Karkaroff's crimes are very similar to those which will apparently drive Crouch to righteous fury when confronted with the Longbottoms' assailants: serving the Dark Lord, torturing wizards. Karkaroff's crimes are hardly any different from the crime which Crouch will later describe as "so heinous. . . .that we have rarely heard the like of it within this court," the crime that will apparently inspire him to bug-eyed fury, to regard the defendents with "pure hatred" in his face, and to condemn them to life imprisonment with the editorial comment "Take them away, and may they rot there!" We don't see any of that righteous fury at Karkaroff's hearing, though. Crouch cuts a deal with Karkaroff and allows him to walk free, even though by doing so he offends at least one of his Aurors, who believes that he is being too lenient. Crouch does speak to Karkaroff coldly, at times contemptuously, but he remains perfectly civil. Nor does he resort to any excessive measures in order to get what he wants out of Karkaroff. As Eileen has asked before, if Crouch were truly so prone to ends-over-means excess, then why not force Karkaroff to reveal the names of his previous confederates by means of torture? Crouch has authorized the use of the Unforgivables. Yet he does not resort to the Cruciatus Curse to wrest Karkaroff's information from him. He chooses the carrot, not the stick. Why? If Crouch is such a fanatic, if he hates Dark Wizardry all that passionately, and if he is such a rabid proponent of the ends over the means, then why would he behave in such a civilized fashion? And if he were really so concerned with the safety of the wizarding world, concerned enough about it that he allows it to lead him into all types of moral error, then how could he allow someone guilty of Karkaroff's crimes to walk free? Because nobody is watching him, that's why. Karkaroff's hearing is a closed hearing. The eye of the public is not upon him. Then let's look at Crouch's relationship with Ludo Bagman. Crouch did think that Bagman was guilty of worse than stupidity. He spoke of it to Winky. Bagman's trial may even have been the turning point in Crouch's political downfall. Yet he is perfectly capable of maintaining a courteous professional relationship with Bagman and of working alongside him in planning the Triwizard Tournament. Crouch shows occasional traces of irritation and exasperation in his dealings with Bagman, but no sign at all of hatred, bitterness or rancour. Now, if Crouch were really such a fanatic, then how could he manage this? Contrast his behavior with that of Arthur Weasley, whose loathing of Lucius Malfoy is so intense that even a childish schoolboy taunt is enough to drive him to attack Malfoy physically. Arthur Weasley is an idealogue. Bartemius Crouch is not. Whenever we see Crouch out in the public eye, then he does indeed give the impression of being the very model of a fanatical hard- liner. But in private? When the public is not watching him? He cuts a deal with Karkaroff and lets him walk free, he accepts Dumbledore's testimony in regard to Snape (unlike Moody, who remains suspicious), and he behaves professionally and cordially towards a colleague whom he himself believes to have knowingly and voluntarily colluded with Death Eaters. And then there are all of those people who got off on the Imperius defense. ===================================================================== "Lucius Malfoy," Elkins says, ticking them off on her fingers. "Acquitted. Crabbe, Nott, Goyle, McNair--" "Avery," Eileen reminds her. "Yes, poor Avery," agrees Elkins. "Acquitted. Crouch Jr.'s co- defendents: the Lestranges, if indeed they be, and Fourth Man. Crouch Jr. was caught with people Sirius Black would have bet his life were Death Eaters, but who had 'talked their way out of Azkaban' the first time around, remember? So. Given a trial. And acquitted." She pauses, then looks down at Eileen. "You do realize, of course," she says. "That you're the one who got me started on this? Remember message #44636, when you asked me why Crouch didn't use the Cruciatus to wrest Karkaroff's names from him? And then asked me how Lucius Malfoy got off?" "But those were supposed to be Crouch apologetics!" wails Eileen. "I was trying to *praise* Crouch, not to bury him! I was just trying to prove that he wasn't--" "Wasn't Stalin. I know. But that does rather beg the question of what precisely he *was,* doesn't it? I notice a very interesting pattern when it comes to Crouch's violations of due process." "That they don't exist?" "Oh, heavens no! They absolutely do exist! But they exist specifically when it comes to cases that are *notorious.* They seem to happen primarily when the public is watching him. And even more specifically, they happen when the public is out for blood." ====================================================================== When we look at the canonical examples that we have been given of the times when Crouch does violate due process, I think that we see a distinct pattern emerging. Sirius Black. Alleged betrayer of the parents of the Wizarding World's savior, the famous Harry Potter, to whom the entire wizarding world is out on the streets singing jubilations. Sirius Black, who even by Harry's day is still capable of inspiring all sorts of frightened sounding rumors from ordinary citizens like Stan and Ern of the Knight Bus. Prison without trial. The Pensieve Four. Alleged torturers of the "very popular" Longbottoms, a crime which Dumbledore says "caused a wave of fury such as I have never known," a crime which placed the Ministry "under great pressure to catch those who had done it." All four of them seemingly young. Three of the four of them already once accused of Dark activities. Sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of no real evidence, after a trial held in what even the Wizarding World seems to consider to have been a kangaroo court. Crouch's legal behavior would seem to be primarily determined by the desires of the public. When no one is watching him, he does not exhibit fanaticism or excess in his treatment of prisoners. When he misjudges the mood of the populace -- as happens at Ludo Bagman's trial -- he backs down without much demur. But when people are clamoring for blood, that is when he panders to them by playing the role of Bartemius Crouch, Fanatical Hard-Liner, and by throwing them sacrificial blood offerings, like Sirius Black and the Pensieve Four. This is in keeping with his behavior overall. Everything that Crouch does is dictated by his public image. In public, Crouch ignores his weeping wife, seems to take no notice of her even when she faints dead away right beside him, and denounces Winky with "no pity in his gaze." In private, he cooperates with his wife's plan to save their son and accedes to Winky's pleas for clemency on his son's behalf. In public, Crouch denounces his son, glares at him with pure hatred in his face, and howls "may they rot there!" as he and his co-defendents are being dragged off by the dementors. In private, he rescues his son from Azkaban, even though doing so involves abandoning his wife to die in a cell and be buried on the prison grounds by dementors. He then keeps his son alive, in good health, and free from physical restraint, even after it has become clear that his son is capable of breaking free from the Imperius Curse, still able to practice magic, and still fanatically loyal to Voldemort; and even after Crouch has dismissed Winky and therefore has no one at all to help him keep watch over or control his captive. In cases which are highly notorious or highly publicized, Crouch sends men to prison without trial (Black), brings cases before the court which probably ought never have come to trial in the first place (Bagman), and pushes for conviction on the basis of little to no evidence (the Longbottom assailants). In cases which are not in the public spotlight, he conducts plea bargains, exonerates Death Eaters like Snape on the basis of Dumbledore's word, and presides over mass acquittals. To the public, Crouch portrays himself as a hard-liner, Tough On Crime. In his actual practice, he cuts deals with convicted criminals, works alongside wizards whom he believes to have served the forces of evil, and allows Death Eaters to walk free. ===================================================================== "Crouch wasn't a fanatic," Elkins concludes wearily. "He wasn't even an idealogue. He was a self-interested politician. He had his eye on the polls and his finger on the pulse. His hard-line Hawk persona was his public act, but he wasn't really like that at all. He wasn't a True Believer. Moody was more of a True Believer than Crouch was. "Crouch was certainly passionate when it came to enforcing his will on others, but he wasn't nearly so passionate when it came to protecting the wizarding world. He didn't place the commonweal above his selfish interests. He wasn't concerned with the safety of others. He wasn't a devoted public servant. He wasn't even all that vehement an opponent of Dark Wizardry. That was just his *persona.* It was the story he told, both to himself and to others. But it wasn't a true story." Elkins shakes her head. "Parents need to be careful of the stories they tell," she says. "They really do. Because the person who really *was* a fanatic? Who really did devote himself body and soul to service to his cause? Who really did privilege it above his regard for his family ties? Who really never once allowed love -- *any* of the four loves -- to dictate his actions? The Bartemius Crouch who really *was* a True Believer? The Barty Crouch who played that game for *keeps?*" Elkins' hobby horse snorts. She pats it absently. "That," she says quietly. "Was his son." There is a very long silence. "Careful the things you wish for," Eileen murmers. "Wishes are children. Yes. I do think that Crouch was a bad influence on his son, you know. But *not* because he spent too much time at the office." "That line has always struck me as hilarious," agrees Eileen. "Considering that for almost 10 months of the year, Crouch Sr. could have got home early from the office any day, and then what? Barty Jr. was at Hogwarts, for heaven's sakes!" "I quite agree. That really is stupid, isn't it? I've always figured that comment had a lot more to do with Sirius himself and his own feelings of regret over not being able to spend any quality time with Harry than it did with the Crouch family. I mean, honestly! Did Crouch *act* like a disinterested father? Does a disinterested father scream denunciations at his son? Does a disinterested father know precisely how many O.W.L.s his son has taken? Does a disinterested father risk being sent off to Azkaban himself in order to rescue a son he probably really did believe to be guilty from prison, and then keep him captive in his own home under the Imperius Curse for over ten years?" "Disinterested parents really don't do things like that, do they?" says Eileen. "No. They don't. If Crouch was anything," says Elkins. "I'd say that he was *too* interested in his son. *Way* too interested in him. Unhealthily interested in him. Over-involved. Over- identified. I do think that Crouch was a terrible parental influence, but not because he was disinterested. Because he was *over-identified.* And also because of the falsehoods that he projected about himself. Falsehoods that his son took far too seriously." "Charis Julia says that Crouch probably never bothered to explain right and wrong to Barty Jr," says Eileen. "She suggests that he simply delivered orders and expected his son to obey them without ever explaining his rationale for them. In the ever-so-brilliant Message 37769, she wrote: > Unfortunately however this left Barty Jr not only resentful of his > father's iron fist but also sadly susceptible to Voldemort's "There > is no good and evil/only power and those too weak to seek it" > persuasive little speech." "Mmmmmm." Elkins shakes her head slowly. "I don't really think that I agree with that precisely," she says. "Not that I don't think that Crouch was a pretty tyrannical father, mind. I'm sure that he was. But I'm not sure that I see the same relationship that Charis does between Crouch's parenting style and his son's terrible decisions. For one thing, I don't see why we should assume that Voldemort used the exact same seduction speech with all of his followers. Was Barty Jr. really a 'power and the will to seek it' sort of person, do you think? I don't think that's quite the way his mind worked. After all, he told us what his greatest ambition was, didn't he? He told us when he was under the veritaserum. He said that his greatest ambition was to *serve.* To serve, and to prove himself worthy of service. In other words," she says. "He wanted to be as truly devoted to the service of some cause as his father, the supposed public servant, merely *pretended* to be." "You aren't really trying to blame Barty Crouch Sr. for his son's decision to become a Death Eater," asks Eileen. "Are you, Elkins?" "No, of course not. People have to make their own choices in the end, don't they? Not that Crouch Sr. believed in that, of course. I'm just pointing out the extent to which the falsehoods that Crouch projected about himself influenced his son's behavior, and in ways that really weren't healthy. It doesn't excuse Crouch Jr. for his bad decisions. He should have found a worthier cause to devote himself to. Much like Percy should have, actually. Or Winky, for that matter, although Winky didn't really have as much choice in the matter. Crouch Sr. didn't deserve the kind of loyalty that he inspired in others, and he didn't have a very salutory effect on those who were drawn in by his charisma, or by the lies that he told. Really, he seems to have corrupted or damaged or destroyed just about everyone that his life touched in one way or another. His son. His Aurors. Percy. Winky. Not to mention Bertha Jorkins! But most of all, the Wizarding World as a whole. Do you remember what I was saying before, about Crouch's relationship with his son?" "You said that you thought that it reiterated on the personal level his political relationship with the wizarding world," answers Eileen. "Right. Well, the reason that parricide and tyrannicide are so closely conceptually linked is because fathers and *leaders* are closely conceptually linked. Crouch had very much the same effect on his public as he did on his son, I'd say. He told lies that people believed, and the lies that he told were really very *bad* for them. We keep being told about how fearful and paranoid everyone was during the war, don't we? Sirius mentions it. Hagrid mentions it. Well, how do you think that they *got* that way?" "Because Voldemort and his DEs were conducting a war of terror?" "In part. But also because they were being encouraged to react that way by their own leaders. Paranoia like that is never a one-way street. The Catlady has said that the feeling she gets from accounts of the days of the war is one of ordinary people being trapped in the middle. She wrote: > Does it help to think of the Death Eaters as BEING the government? > Like right-wing paramilitary death squads of RL 1980s? The > situation gives me a feel for the ordinary person's caught-in-the- > middle-ness, altho' in RL they were between the paramilitaries and > the guerrillas, not between the military governmment's secret > police and the hypothetical equally deadly agents of the few honest > judges left. "And *that's* how you get paranoia of the sort that Sirius and Hagrid describe," says Elkins. "Not just from a terrorist threat. It really does take two for that particular tango. And it's a *harmful* tango, too. A corrupting tango. We're shown the effects that Crouch's favored atmosphere of paranoia and terror had on the populace. We see it in that Pensieve scene, and we also get a nice taste of it in _PoA._ We get a real mouthful there. Paranoia. Betrayal. Old school friends suspecting each other..." "But they were *right* to suspect each other, Elkins! They just weren't suspecting the right old school friend, that's all." "Well, all right, then. Fine," says Elkins crossly. "What *about* Pettigrew? You want to hear what mass hysteria does to people? 'He was taking over everywhere! What was there to be gained by refusing him?'" "Elkins!" objects Eileen. "Pettigrew is a *liar*!" "Yeah, Pettigrew is a liar, and his real motivations are still a bit of a black box. But I still think it's fair to assume that he wasn't being utterly deceitful there, don't you? No halfway decent dissembler would ever have attempted to provide *that* as a defense. It was a perfectly suicidal statement, which leads me to believe that there must have been some degree of truth to it." "You can't blame Crouch for Pettigrew's treachery," objects Eileen. "That's completely unfair. That's even worse than blaming Crouch for his son becoming a Death Eater." "I'm not," sighs Elkins. "I'm not blaming Crouch for Pettigrew's treachery. Pettigrew can bear the responsibility for his own sins..." "No he can't," says Eileen bluntly. "I...um." Elkins laughs. "Well, er, no," she agrees. "Okay. I guess he really *can't,* can he? That's just his problem. But he should do. I'm not blaming Crouch for Pettigrew's act of treachery. Not completely. But I do think that in that statement of his in the Shack we are being shown some evidence of just the sort of effect that Crouch's political approach had on the populace, and particularly on people who were weak. People who were already *vulnerable.* Vulnerable to fear. Vulnerable to despair. Pettigrew is ultimately responsible for his own actions, just like Crouch Jr. was. But political leaders have responsibilities too, you know. Just like parents do. *Especially* in times of war. "And that's one of my big sticking points with Crouch," concludes Elkins. "It's not that he was a hypocrite. I wouldn't mind that so much, honestly. And it's not that he was a Hawk, either. That's a perfectly honorable political position, even if it is not my own. No, my problem with him is that he was a *war profiteer.* One whose profit came in the form of political capital and personal power, and at the expense of the populace that he was supposed to serve. Not a Hawk, but a Storm Crow, someone who battened on fear and hatred and paranoia, and on public hysteria, and who stirred it up not out of honorable motives, but to serve his own selfish ends. That's something that I find really hard to forgive. Not only do I personally find it profoundly unsympathetic, but the text itself also links it quite explicitly to Voldemort. It does so repeatedly, in fact. Harry identifies the hatred exhibited by that jeering Pensieve mob as every bit as much Voldemort's handiwork as the torture of the Longbottoms. Voldemort is explicitly defined as operating by fostering hatred and suspicion between people: 'Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great.' In the HP series, the things that Crouch stood to represent are marked quite clearly as the forces of *evil.* "And that's why I feel that Crouch's political errors are thematically linked to his eventual fate," Elkins explains. "That Crouch ends up in thrall to Voldemort, secretly working in his service, is dramatic irony, isn't it? Because that's not a new role for him at all. It's merely the literal expression of the role that he had always played. "Crouch claimed to hate the Dark Arts, yet he both facilitated their use and practiced them himself. He claimed to stand to protect the wizarding world, yet he actually placed it very much at risk. He claimed to serve his people, yet he exploited, harmed and corrupted them. He claimed to oppose Voldemort, yet he actually worked to foster precisely the evils that Voldemort stands to represent. "In GoF, Crouch's service to Voldemort just makes its final transition from the symbolic level to the literal one," Elkins concludes. "Secretly serving as a tool of evil wasn't a new role for Crouch. It was the fruition of his entire political career. He had been serving the forces of evil his entire life." ************** Elkins ********************************************************************** REFERENCES: This post is continued from part three. It is primarily a response to Messages #44636 (Despiadado Denethor) and #45402 (Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero), but also cites or references message numbers 37769, 39573, 43010 and downthread responses, 44643, 45693, and 46935. For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 02:44:09 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 02:44:09 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - "My mother saved me." (5 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47932 Five "My mother saved me." --------------- "Crouch had been serving the forces of evil his entire life," Elkins states, from up high on her pale hobby horse. "He really *was* Ever So Evil, you know." Eileen says nothing for a long time. She rearranges the little paper cups on her CRAB CUSTARD table, casts a despairing look over to the long line which has now formed at Cindy's Rookwood thong booth, and then ducks down beneath her folding table. After a few moments of rummaging around through a small cardboard box down there, she straightens, red magic marker in one hand. She clambers up onto the table and reaching up, adds a phrase to the CRAB CUSTARD banner hanging above her display. "C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D," the banner now reads. "So exciting it'll make your eyes bulge! More Dark Sexiness than even Augustus Rookwood! Try some today!" She hops down, somewhat out of breath, and glares at Elkins. "I'm beginning to see why you liked Brutus so much," she says. "The *other* Brutus, I mean. Brutus Jr. The one with a taste for *parricide.* And for *stabbing.* This is...this is just a *character assassination!*" "Character assassination?" Elkins thinks about this for a moment, then smiles. "Character assassination," she repeats. "Heh. Oh. Oh, Eileen. I am only getting started. I did tell you that I hadn't even begun to touch on Mr. Crouch's iniquities, didn't I? Trust me. I have only just begun." Her lips draw back in a snarl. "I have not yet made my peace with Mr. Crouch." "Yes," says Eileen, in a tight little voice. "Well. We all know what your bias is, don't we. But I can't believe that you actually just...just thematically *hedgehogged* poor Barty Crouch Sr. Have you no pity, Elkins?" Elkins tilts her head to one side and peers down at Eileen over the tops of her spectacles. "You told me that you *wanted* me to attack Crouch Sr." she reminds her. "You said that you liked nothing better. You claimed that you found it exciting. You explained that you were suckled on controversy. And you insisted that you really *did* want to hear me out on this subject." "I really did say that all of that," Eileen agrees glumly. "Didn't I." "Yes. You did." "Can I take it back?" Eileen asks, without much hope. "No. But if you like, we can take a short breather from Crouch's iniquities. A little break, perhaps, Eileen? A little pause?" Elkins grins wolfishly. "How about we talk about Mrs. Crouch for a while instead?" "Mrs. Crouch?" Eileen scowls. "Oh, I don't like that Mrs. Crouch. I don't like her at all." "I know that you don't. Would you care to explain why?" "Well, I think my problem is that she put unbearable pressure on her husband to do something that was totally wrong. I can't forgive her that. Crouch Sr. made all his other horrible mistakes of his own volition, but she forced him into that one." "Did she really?" "Yes! He couldn't refuse her last request. Because he *was* a man of honour, Elkins. Just like you've said yourself, even if you are trying to recant that now. Wizards take last requests very seriously. The text establishes that through Harry's last actions in the graveyard. It shows us there that good people, decent people, do not deny last requests. And people with True Wizarding Pride *certainly* don't. They honour them. No matter what." "Hmmmm." Elkins thinks about this. "You know, you may have a point there?" "Of course I have a point there! Mrs. Crouch left her husband no choice. And that's precisely why I dislike her so. Let's just say that I don't like dying characters who impose last commands on their loved ones." "No," agrees Elkins. "That really isn't fair play, is it? Ugly coercive behavior, that. Mrs. Crouch really does seem to have been a nasty passive-aggressive piece of goods. *Especially* if it's true that the wizarding world holds the honoring of last requests as an important part of its ethos. That would make it very coercive behavior indeed, wouldn't it? Why, it would be almost as bad as placing disobedient family members under the Imperius Curse! Or casting over-enthusiastic memory charms on your subordinates!" "Or keeping the man that you're impersonating under the Imperius Curse and locked half-freezing in a trunk while you *interrogate* him for seven months?" demands Eileen angrily. "Or torturing two people into a state of irrevocable insanity?" "Well," says Elkins, laughing. "Quite a bit less severe than *that,* I'd say. But similarly coercive, yes. Seems to have run in the family, doesn't it? Definitely unacceptable behavior. Although I have to say that I do find it rather more sympathetic for someone to engage in that sort of behavior in order to save a human *life* than I do for someone to engage in it just to protect himself from exposure as a law-breaker. Or to gratify his lust for dominion by seeking to bend his rebellious son to his will. Or to facilitate the return of Voldemort, for that matter," she adds, almost as an afterthought. "Well, I still don't like Mrs. Crouch," Eileen says stubbornly. "She used unfair tactics to force her husband into doing something that he really didn't want to do...in the name of love. It sickens me somehow, even if she was brave to die in Azkaban like that, and did sacrifice herself for her son." "Even if she was brave to die in Azkaban like that," Elkins repeats slowly. "And did sacrifice herself for her son." She smiles and shakes her head. "What?" "Coercive behavior," says Elkins. "Unbearable pressure. Something that no one with Proper Wizarding Pride could ever refuse. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. No matter what. She left him no choice. She forced his hand. She made him do it." She sighs. "Eileen," she says. "You don't really *believe* that story, do you?" "What?" "The 'last favor' story. Do you really believe it?" "Man, these Rookwood thongs really *move,*" announces Cindy, returning to the CRAB CUSTARD table with a smug smile on her face and a considerable quantity of galleons jingling in her pockets. She lowers herself into one of the wooden benches lining the promenade and puts her feet up. "I'm completely out. What is Elkins saying now?" "She's trying to claim that Barty Crouch didn't really save his son from prison to honor his wife's dying request," Eileen tells her. "So *typical.* Elkins just doesn't want to give poor Barty a pass on a single one of his fatal errors, is what I'm thinking." "Well, really, Eileen," says Elkins. "Have you ever paused to consider the *source* of that story?" "Its source? You mean the *canon*?" "No, I mean its source *within* the canon. Where does this idea that Crouch only saved his son to honor his wife's dying request come from in the first place? Where does it originate? How do we know that it really happened that way?" "Well, we know it because..." Eileen begins, then stops. "Oh," she says. "Oh." "Yes?" Eileen closes her eyes. "We know it," she says slowly. "Because his son says so." "Yes," says Elkins. "We know it because his son says so." She reaches into her satchel, pulls out her own copy of _GoF,_ opens it to the right page, and begins to read: "'My mother saved me. She knew she was dying. She persuaded my father to rescue me as a last favor to her. He loved her as he had never loved me. He agreed.'" She slams the book shut. "That," she says. "Is our *only* evidence for this notion that Crouch saved his son's life only because his wife put unbearable psychological pressure on him to convince him to do so. That's it. All of it. How much credence do we give it?" "Well," says Cindy thoughtfully. "Crouch Jr. did say it under the influence of the veritaserum. And Winky was right there when he said it, too, and she didn't contradict him." "Crouch Jr. also implies that his father never really loved him under the influence of the veritaserum," Elkins points out. "And Winky doesn't contradict him when he says that, either. Yet we don't generally believe him when he says that, do we?" "Oh, but look," objects Eileen. "These two statements aren't really at all the same thing. Whether or not Crouch really loved his son is a matter of opinion. But that he saved his son because his wife made it her dying request is a statement of *fact.*" "Is it?" Elkins thinks about this for a moment. "But how would young Crouch have known it?" she asks. "What?" "How would he have *known* it? How could young Crouch possibly have known anything about the precise nature of his parents' deliberations over whether or not to save him from Azkaban? It's not as if he was privy to those conversations. He was in prison at the time. *Dying.* Really, anything that Crouch Jr. says about his father's reasons for saving his life has to be one of two things, doesn't it? Either it's hearsay, something that someone told him directly, or it's extrapolation from hearsay. Speculation. Deduction." "I guess so," says Eileen dubiously. "But--" "And honestly, it seems far more likely to be the latter to me. After all, who would have told him such a thing? Who told him that his father was only persuaded to agree to a plan to save him from prison as a last favor to his dying mother? Can you imagine his *father* telling him that? 'Just so you know, boy, I would have happily left you to rot in Azkaban, if only your sainted mother hadn't forced my hand with that blasted dying request of hers.' I really can't see that. Can you?" "Well..." "And I certainly can't imagine *Winky* telling him such a thing. Not unless we're willing to propose an Ever So Evil Winky, one who wants to make sure that young Crouch keeps on hating his father just as much as he possibly can." "That Ever So Evil Winky just keeps looking better and better," mutters Cindy. "I know," agrees Elkins. "It's just awful, isn't it? But unless we want to accept either ESE Winky or a rather stunningly brutal elder Crouch, I think that we're left with extrapolation. Extrapolation, speculation, deduction. None of which is precisely immune from bias." "Yes, we've noticed that," says Eileen, with a pointed look at Elkins' hobby horse. "Are you saying that Crouch Jr. was deluded?" demands Cindy. "Deluded?" Elkins considers the question. She toys absently with her horse's mane, then looks down and begins plaiting it carefully into small tight braids. "I think," she says slowly, "that it has got to be very easy to play Good Parent/Bad Parent when one of your parents isn't even around to piss you off anymore, while the other one is holding you prisoner by means of an Unforgivable Curse. I think," she says, "that it has got to be even easier to play that game when one of your parents died in your place in Azkaban, while the other one first publicly denounced you and then, while you were screaming and struggling and pleading for mercy while being dragged off by the dementors, exhorted you at the top of his lungs to go and rot there. I think," says Elkins. "That it is appallingly easy to idolize and to romanticize a dead parent under *any* circumstances. But when that parent actually died in your *stead?*" Elkins shakes her head. "I don't think that Crouch Jr. had to be deluded to believe what he believed," she says. "I just think that he had to be human. We already know that he thought that his father didn't love him very much. We already know that he loved his mother." "I'm not sure if Crouch Jr. ever really loved anyone," says Eileen. "No?" Elkins raises an eyebrow. "Well, if you don't want to ascribe to him even enough humanity to assume that he loved his mother, you still must concede that he was highly emotionally *dependent* on her. Sirius heard him screaming out for her in his cell in Azkaban, and there was no one he could have been hoping to manipulate by doing that. There was no one around to hear him. No one who could have helped him, at any rate. No one who *cared.* I doubt that he was trying to manipulate the *dementors* by doing that. So I think that we have to accept that there, at least, he was not acting. That was genuine. That was for real." Eileen thinks about this for a moment, then exhales irritably. "Oh, I just *hate* your Crouch Jr. apologetics, Elkins," she complains. "You know, now I'm feeling sorry for the evil little brat?" "As well you should," Elkins tells her, smiling slightly. "As well you should. Have you ever wondered how they broke the news to him, by the way?" "The news?" "Of his mother's death. He was dying when his father carted him out of Azkaban. That was the only reason that his parents were allowed to visit him in the first place: it was a *death bed* visit. Sirius saw him leaving while disguised as his mother, and he says that Crouch was 'half-carrying' him out of there. I very much doubt that he was in any condition to understand what was going on. He was probably only vaguely aware of what was happening at the time. So who explained it to him? How do you explain to a very sick young man who has just been nursed back from the very brink of death that his mother has died in his place in Azkaban, and that his father never claimed her body but instead left her there to be buried on the prison grounds by dementors?" "I very much doubt that he cared about that," says Eileen coldly. "No? Oh, I really wouldn't be so sure about that. There's something else that we might deduce from Cedric's last request in the graveyard, you know. We might deduce from it that proper burial is important to wizards. We learn about the disposition of Mrs. Crouch's body three times over the course of this novel. Really, she gets a lot more to do as a *corpse* than she does as a human being. Sirius tells us about her burial, and then Crouch Jr. mentions it not just once in the course of his interrogation, but *twice.* He tells Dumbledore that his mother was buried at Azkaban, bearing his appearance and his identity, and then later on, he specifies that her grave is empty. It's utterly redundant information, that. It's not necessary plot exposition for the reader, and it isn't information that Crouch Jr. needs to provide in order to satisfy the strictures of his interrogation either. It isn't directly responsive to Dumbledore's question. He's already explained that his mother was buried at Azkaban. He's already explained that his father 'staged' her funeral. Really, the fact her grave is a cenotaph is sort of a no-brainer, isn't it? It's the default assumption. It goes without saying. Yet he doesn't allow it to go without saying. Instead, he says it. Why?" "Because he has to," says Cindy. "He's under the influence of the veritaserum, and..." But Elkins is shaking her head slowly back and forth. "It doesn't seem to work that way," she says. "No matter what Harry might have feared when Snape threatened him with the veritaserum, it doesn't seem to make people babble at random. Crouch Jr's testimony isn't incoherent. He really doesn't digress all that much in the veritaserum scene at all. Just about everything that he says is either directly responsive to a question he's been asked, or it is plot exposition for the reader's benefit. When he *does* volunteer extraneous information, it speaks to his character, to his motivations. When he does digress, it is always on a topic that has some strong emotional resonance for him." Elkins pulls a thin red ribbon out of one pocket and begins threading it into one of the braids of her horse's mane. "Haven't you ever wondered," she asks, "why Crouch Jr. went to all the trouble to turn his father's body into a bone and then bury it in Hagrid's garden, rather than just, say, transfiguring it to dust? Young Crouch's sense of justice was twisted. It was bent. It was warped utterly out of proportion. But there wasn't anything *stunted* about it. If anything, it was overdeveloped. Overdeveloped, and very badly broken. I'd say that he cared a great deal about what became of his mother's body. I think that he cared enormously about that." "*I* think that he was just a twisted little psycho," Cindy says. "Well." Elkins shrugs. "The two are hardly mutually exclusive. But all right. Let's leave aside the question of how Crouch Jr. might have felt about his father leaving his mother to be buried on prison grounds by Dark creatures under the identity of a notorious and publicly loathed convicted criminal. Let's get back on topic. *Somebody* had to tell young Crouch about his mother's death. Either Winky did it, or his father did. And I just keep thinking...well, how would you go about explaining something like that to a very sick teenager? Especially if he hadn't yet started shooting his mouth off about wanting to run off to restore his fallen master to power? If you didn't know yet that he was Ever So Evil? If you thought that he might actually be repentent, or at least redeemable? Seriously. How would you?" "Well," says Eileen slowly. "I guess that all depends. Am I winky, or am I Barty Crouch Sr.?" "An excellent question. I'm sure that Winky would have tried to soften the blow a whole lot more. But whoever it was, I imagine that they would have emphasized the following factors." Elkins holds up her hand and begins ticking them off on her fingers. "Your mother really wanted to do this for you," she says. "She did it willingly. It was her idea. She absolutely insisted upon it. It was the very last thing that she wanted to do on this earth..." "All of which was true," says Cindy. "All of which was certainly true. But all of which, taken together, still doesn't quite add up to the story that Crouch Jr. implies: that his father had been dead-set against the idea, that his ailing mother had forced his father's hand, that she had only prevailed on her husband to relent by placing upon him the unbearable onus of a last request. It doesn't *quite* add up that way. But I can certainly see how if I had been Crouch Jr, then I might have come up with just that as my final answer when I sat down to do the math. Especially given what we see elsewhere of his rationalizations when it comes to his father." "His rationalizations?" repeats Cindy, frowning. "Yes. Have you ever taken a really close look at Crouch Jr's own account of his rescue from Azkaban? It's actually quite interesting. Look." Elkins reaches down into her satchel of Crouch Jr. Apologetics. After a bit of rummaging, she pulls out a rather thick binder, with the words "Sympathy For The Devil: Veritaserum, A Close Reading" written across the top. "This is young Crouch's own account of his rescue from Azkaban," she says. "With Winky's interjections and the intrusions of the narrative voice left out. It's all part of his response to the first question that Dumbledore puts to him formally: 'How did you escape from Azkaban?' Listen." She opens the binder to a marked page and begins to read: "'They came to visit me. They gave me a draft of Polyjuice Potion containing one of my mother's hairs. She took a draft of Polyjuice Potion containing one of my hairs. We took on each other's appearance....The dementors are blind. They sensed one healthy, one dying person entering Azkaban. They sensed one healthy, one dying person leaving it. My father smuggled me out, disguised as my mother, in case any prisoners were watching through their doors.... My mother died a short while afterward in Azkaban. She was careful to drink Polyjuice Potion until the end. She was buried under my name and bearing my appearance. Everyone believed her to be me.'" Elkins closes the binder. "That's Crouch Jr's own account of how he was rescued from Azkaban," she says. "Do you notice anything unusual about it?" "His father," Eileen whispers. "Where's his poor father? His father is barely even *there.*" "No. He really isn't, is he? Crouch Jr. doesn't even make his father the subject of his *sentences* when he can avoid it. He denies his father even the grammatical role of active agent. The subject of his sentences is almost always either 'my mother' or the ever-so-evasive 'they.' 'They gave me a draft of Polyjuice Potion containing one of my mother's hairs.' Yes? Well, *who* did? Who actually handed him the potion to drink? What do you think, Eileen?" "His father," says Eileen. "His father did." Elkins nods. "If he can really remember that event at all," she says. "If he's not just going by what he was told about it later, then I'd be willing to bet that it was his father who handed it to him. If it had been his mother, then he would have said so. He can't actually lie under the veritaserum, though, so instead he uses that evasive parental plural. There is only one place in his entire account of his rescue from prison where Crouch Jr. allows his father to be the subject of the sentence. 'My father smuggled me out, disguised as my mother, in case any prisoners were watching through their doors.' He doesn't deny his father the role of active agent in that sentence, but he does smear him with that rather dubious verb. 'Smuggled.' It's as if he wants to taint his father's involvement as much as possible, to imbue it with criminal associations. His mother is the one who 'saved' him. His father just 'smuggled' him. "And have you ever paused to consider what the very first sentence of Crouch Jr's confession is? The very first thing that he says under interrogation?" "'Yes,'" says Cindy. Elkins waits. "No," explains Cindy. "I mean, that's the first thing that he says under interrogation. Dumbledore asks him if he can hear him. And he answers: 'Yes.'" "Oh, for..." Elkins closes her eyes. "Work *with* me here, can't you? *After* that! The first thing that he says *after* that!" "Oh, sorry," says Cindy innocently. "I guess I misunderstood." Eileen giggles. Elkins glares at both of them. "Dumbledore asks him," she says through gritted teeth. "How he came to be there. How he escaped from Azkaban. And the very first thing that he says, his very first sentence in response is: 'My mother saved me.' Don't you find that telling? If his affect weren't so deadened, one might even be tempted to call it defensive. How did you come to be here? 'My *mother* saved me.' His entire opening paragraph, in fact: "'My mother saved me. She knew she was dying. She persuaded my father to rescue me as a last favor to her. He loved her as he had never loved me. He agreed.' "It all seems very much of a piece to me. Those concepts all go together: my mother was the one who saved me, my mother pressured my father into rescuing me, my father never really loved me. They are a conceptual whole. Taken together, they form a coherent emotional argument." "A coherent emotional argument?" "Yes. And what that argument says is: 'I didn't owe my father a damned thing.'" Eileen nods slowly. "I've never believed Barty Jr. when he says that his father didn't love him," she says. "It seems to me like the sort of thing any immature teenager might say." "Yes. Well, that whole dying request story strikes me in very much the same way, honestly. It seems like exactly the sort of spin that an adolescent in young Crouch's position would have put on what he had very likely been told about his mother's death. It's very romantic. It's very dramatic. It casts his mother as an absolute saint, and his father as a bit of an ogre. And it does something else as well. Something very important." "It absolves him from gratitude," says Cindy. "Yep. That's precisely what it does. *Especially* if we assume that wizards really do take last requests very seriously. If last requests can't be refused, then what does young Crouch really owe to his father for saving his life, anyway? Nothing, that's what. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. He owes it all to his mother. Who, conveniently enough, is *dead* and therefore in no position to place any demands on him." "Convenient, that." "Oh, it's *very* convenient. Particularly when you consider one last thing." Elkins takes a deep breath. "By the time that he is speaking under the veritaserum," she says. "Crouch Jr. has become a *parricide.* And while we're only guessing that wizards might have a strong belief in last requests, and while we're only guessing that they might have strong feelings about proper burial, there is something that we *know* that they believe in." She waits. "We know that they believe in life debts," says Eileen. "Yes. We know that they believe in life debts. Awkward things, life debts." "Don't children owe their parents a life debt as a matter of simple default?" asks Cindy. "Awkward things," Elkins says again. "Life debts." This time, with narrative feeling. She sighs and presses the heels of her palms hard against her eyes. "Crouch Jr. implies that his father only saved him because his mother prevailed upon him to do so," she says. "He says it under veritaserum, which means that it must be his truth. But his truth is not necessarily the same thing as his father's truth. And I can think of far too many reasons why it *would* have been his truth. And far too few ways that he could possibly have known it for sure. "I'm somewhat reminded, in fact," she adds, "of that painting that you linked to, Eileen." She removes her hands from her eyes and glances over to Eileen. "In your Crouch as Tragic Hero post? The URL that Porphyria sent you? The one that you proposed as the Crouch family portrait?" Eileen nods. "Jacques-Louis David," she says. "_The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons._" "Yes, that's the one. Brutus' wife is featured in that painting, isn't she? She's there with her two daughters, on the right hand side, the very brightest part of the canvas. She's bathed in light. The viewer's eye is naturally drawn to her first; it just can't help but be. But she's not really the subject of the painting at all, is she? The subject of the painting is really her husband. Who is harder to see. Slower to catch the attention of the viewer. Obscured in the shadows. "But Brutus is the *real* subject of that painting," concludes Elkins. "Not his wife. I don't think that saving his son from Azkaban was only Crouch's wife's error. I think that it was also his own. I think that in the end, Crouch saved his son because he wanted to." ******************* Elkins (who prefers The Death of Marat) ********************************************************************** REFERENCES This post is continued from part four. It is mainly a response to messages 45402 (Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero) and 45693 (Crouch and Winky), but also cites or references messages 43326, 43447, 44636, 46923, and 46935. "This time, with narrative feeling" -- in some branches of reader response criticism, 'narrative feeling' is the term used to describe those emotional reactions to the text which derive from the reader's engagement with the text's narrative, or story-telling, elements. The most common example is a reader's sense of personal identification with a fictional character. Link to "The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons:" http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/brutus.jpg For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 03:01:28 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:01:28 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Last Orders (6 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47933 [Apologies in advance to Eileen. This one got just a mite bit cruel in places.] Six Last Orders ----------------- "I think that in the end," Elkins concludes, putting 'Sympathy For the Devil: Veritaserum, a Close Reading' back in her satchel, "Crouch saved his son because he wanted to. I'm not buying that 'last orders' story. I just don't believe it. It sounds to me far more like Barty Jr's heavily biased speculation about what happened than it does like an accurate description of how that decision was actually reached." "But you said yourself that you thought that Mrs. Crouch was putting on a performance at her son's sentencing!" Eileen objects. "You suggested that she faked that fainting spell. You implied that she was deliberately trying to manipulate her husband's emotions." "Oh, I know," sighs Elkins. "I know. And I really do think that she was, too. But at the same time, I've always found myself wondering just how hard Mrs. Crouch really had to work on her husband to get him to agree to her plan. I find it very difficult to believe that Crouch Sr. was nearly as reluctant as his son implies." "But Elkins," asks Eileen. "*Why?*" "Well, because does Crouch Sr. really *act* like someone who doesn't value his son's life? For someone who was supposedly pressured into saving his son so very much against his own will and his own inclinations, he seems awfully invested in protecting him, don't you think? He seems to be willing to pay just about any price to keep him alive. And in the end," she adds grimly. "He *pays* it, too." "Because he loved his wife," Cindy tells her. "And because remaining faithful to her dying wish by keeping her son alive was the only way that he had to remember her, or to honour her final sacrifice." "And because even after his wife was gone," adds Eileen. "He still had Winky around to throw her memory in his face all the time." Elkins thinks about this for a long moment. "Eileen," she says finally. "Tell me again about Crouch's dismissal of Winky, will you? About it being an expression of hostility against his late wife?" "Well," says Eileen. "Winky and Mrs. Crouch both occupy the same role in the text, really, don't they? They're described in the same terms. They fill the same functions. Mrs. Crouch dies but she doesn't leave the story. The entire Crouch Sr./Mrs. Crouch dynamic is recreated between Crouch Sr. and Winky. After all, the whole 'Let him go to the QWC' is just a continuation of 'Let him switch places with me in Azkaban.' When Mrs. Crouch dies, Winky just takes over her role, doesn't she?" "She certainly seems to. In some ways." "Well, doesn't that suggest that in some way when he denounced Winky and released her from service, he was actually dismissing the shadow of his wife? He didn't let go of Winky because she embarassed him. He let go of her because she endangered him. Just as his wife endangered him. The two: Winky and Mrs. Crouch, pretty much killed him in the end. In dismissing Winky, Crouch is finally throwing off the control she had over his life (which is as real as the control he had over hers), and throwing off the control his wife had over him as well. So, yes, I think he was banishing his wife in some way when he let go of Winky. Not so pleasant." "No," agrees Elkins quietly. "Not at all pleasant. Particularly when you consider how he's regarding Winky in that scene. 'As though she were something filthy and rotten that was contaminating his over- shined shoes.'" "Ooooh, harsh," comments Cindy. "Poor Barty," Eileen sighs. "Yes, poor old Crouch, eh? What a life. So let me just see if I've got this straight. Crouch finally banishes this nasty disgusting feminine influence that has been endangering him all of this time. He wrests himself free from the control of these wife figures who keep exerting such a powerful and dangerous feminizing influence on him, luring him into showing mercy even when it is grossly irresponsible for him to do so, and who are also, in some sense, actively *betraying* him, as they take his son's side against his own. By dismissing Winky, he is striking out not only at Winky herself, but also at his late wife. In effect, he is banishing her shade. He is performing a kind of an exorcism. Is that more or less correct?" Elkins looks questioningly over to Eileen, who nods tentatively. "You know, I absolutely love this reading?" Elkins tells her. Eileen looks startled. "You do?" "Yes. I'm hopelessly enamoured of it. But only if I can tweak it a little bit. Because my main problem with it as it stands is...well, okay, so Crouch banishes Winky and with her, the shade of his late wife. He wrests himself free from their dangerous feminizing influence. So far so good. But what does he do *then?*" Eileen frowns. "What do you mean?" "Well, what's the *outcome* of that exorcism? See, this is my problem with this reading. It's the same problem that I have with the whole Last Orders story, actually. It's the problem that I have with 'my dying wife forced my hand!' For that matter, it's also my problem with your insistence that Winky and Mrs. Crouch were more careless and reckless when it came to Barty Jr. than Crouch himself was. You see, I just can't reconcile any of those claims with Crouch's actions *after* the QWC." "His actions after the QWC?" "Yes. Really, Crouch's decisions after the QWC are quite damning, don't you think? To my mind, they're far worse than either the decision to save Barty Jr. from prison in the first place or the decision to allow him to attend the World Cup. I can see plenty of mitigating factors for both of those decisions. But none of those factors are still in effect after the QWC. After the QWC, all of the mitigating factors are gone." "I don't think that I'm quite seeing what you mean," says Eileen. "Well, okay. Look here." ====================================================================== People often cite Crouch's rescue of his son from Azkaban as the most serious of his errors, THE fatal error, so to speak, the action which leads unerringly and inexorably to his destruction. While I certainly agree that hindsight reveals this act to have been a very bad mistake, I am always surprised that more people don't cite Crouch's behavior *after* the QWC as a far more damning example of his fatal carelessness when it came to his son. Rescuing his son from prison was certainly a very hypocritical thing for Mr. Crouch to have done. Truly sickeningly so. I don't, however, necessarily see it as all that *foolhardy.* We don't actually know what Crouch and his wife were thinking when they conspired to save their son from death in Azkaban. It is possible that they might have believed that there was a chance that he really had been innocent. Young Crouch alone of the defendents in the Longbottom case had never before stood accused of any Dark activity. There seems to have been no real evidence against him, other than the circumstantial evidence of his having been caught in the company of the others. Even if he had been fingered by the testimony of his three co-defendents, this would hardly have been the most compelling evidence, given how we can imagine the Death Eaters as a group must have felt about elder Crouch, who had commanded his Aurors against them and sent so many of their number to prison. Both Dumbledore and Sirius expressed doubt about Crouch Jr's guilt. In the part of his trial that we see in the Pensieve, his co-defendents ignore his outbursts completely, while he himself insists upon his innocence to the very last. Eileen has argued in the past that Crouch "knew" that his son was guilty, but I just don't see how he could possibly have known this. Nobody did. If Crouch "knew" that his son was guilty, then he knew it in precisely the same way that he "knew" that Sirius Black was guilty -- which is to say, he didn't. I do think that Crouch genuinely believed his son to be guilty, but he might also have been willing to concede the possibility that there was a chance that his son really *could* be innocent. This could have had some bearing on his decision to agree to his wife's plan to free Barty Jr. from Azkaban. Alternatively (and, to my mind, far more likely), the Crouches could have believed that their son was, while technically guilty, not really a very hard case. Crouch Jr. was very young, after all. He was barely past the age of majority. His parents could have believed that he'd been led astray. That he'd been seduced. That he'd been an accessory, but not an accomplice. That he'd been an accomplice, but not an active participant. That all he really needed to straighten him out was one of those proverbial short sharp shocks (if one can really use that phrase to refer to a year of imprisonment in Azkaban that proved nearly fatal to young Barty and probably had a lot to do with driving him completely around the bend). Judy Serenity once wrote: > My personal belief is that that Crouch Sr. believed his son was > guilty and deserved harsh punishment, but had no idea just how > devoted Jr. was to Voldemort. I don't think Crouch Sr. could > possibly be expected to know that his son would help return > Voldemort to power if released from Azkaban. Any parent would > think "My son was under the bad influence of his friends" not "My > son is the most evil creature on the face of this earth." She also once suggested that Crouch might have envisioned sending Barty off to start a new life somewhere abroad under a new identity, before he realized that his son was completely unrepentant. Indeed, I can see plenty of reasons why the Crouches might have thought that rescuing their son from Azkaban was not an action that would have had any terrible repercussions or placed anyone at any real risk. Crouch Jr's lack of repentence would seem to have come as an utter surprise to his father. His father did not put him under the Imperius Curse until he was fool enough to start shooting his mouth off about wanting to run off to seek Voldemort. The impression that I have always received is that until Crouch Jr. was idiotic enough to make his intentions known, his father had fully expected him to be abjectly grateful for having been liberated: duly chastened, repentent, dutiful, obedient. In short, harmless. Crouch's decision to continue to keep his son a prisoner in his own home even after it became clear that he was both guilty and unrepentant was also unwise, but again, I can at least see how he might have managed to justify this decision to himself. His son was under the Imperius Curse. He was under guard. He wasn't going to break free. What difference does it really make, from the perspective of ensuring the safety of the populace, whether a criminal is kept prisoner in Azkaban or in his father's home? Either way, he is not capable of hurting anybody. The decision to allow Crouch Jr. to attend the QWC doesn't strike me as all that foolhardy either, really. Crouch Jr. had been under the Imperius Curse for over ten *years.* Surely neither Winky nor Crouch expected that after all of that time, he was suddenly going to be able to break free of it. I imagine that they assumed that if Crouch Jr. hadn't been able to crack the Imperius as an angry young teenager, then he *certainly* wasn't going to be doing so ten years later, at the age of thirty, after over a decade of captivity, demoralizing treatment, and mental enslavement. There is such a thing as an institutional mentality, after all. Crouch may even have deluded himself into believing that he had finally succeeded in crushing his son's spirit, that Crouch Jr. had been cowed, broken, beaten into submission. Rendered harmless. Crouch and Winky also probably assumed that Crouch Jr. didn't have any magical capabilities. One of the long-term effects of the dementors is supposed to be that they strip wizards of their magical powers, and the dementors had young Crouch right on the brink of death when he was saved from them. Furthermore, he hadn't been allowed access to a wand since prison. So really, how dangerous could he possibly be? What harm could letting him go watch a sporting event do to anyone? As it turns out, none of these things was the case. But both Crouch and Winky can be forgiven for having assumed them. They were reasonable assumptions, even if they were incorrect. But *after* the QWC? After the QWC, Crouch *had* to have realized what kind of a threat his son represented. He must have. Crouch Jr. had proven himself strong enough to throw off his father's Imperius Curse, strong enough even to put up a bit of a fight against Winky's powerful elf magic. He had proven himself cagey enough to steal a wand from the most carefully guarded teenager in the entire wizarding world, and in front of an entire slew of witnesses -- still without getting caught. He had proven that even after near-death in Azkaban, even after over a decade of mental domination, even after a decade denied access to a wand, he was still magically capable enough to use somebody *else's* wand to fire the Dark Mark into the sky. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Crouch could have known that their son would be dangerous once released from prison. Neither Winky nor Mr. Crouch could have known that he would be strong enough to break free of the Imperius Curse when they decided to bring him to the QWC. But after the QWC, Crouch knows the truth of the matter. His son isn't crushed. He isn't cowed. He isn't beaten, he isn't broken, he isn't bowed. He isn't in the slightest bit repentent. He is still devoted to Voldemort's cause. He is still determined to fight his father. He is still in full possession of both his mental faculties and his magical capabilities. He can kick his father's Imperius Curse. And he's not playing with a full deck. He. Is. *Dangerous.* ====================================================================== "Dangerous," repeats Elkins. "He's dangerous. A danger to himself and others." "A viper at his father's bosom," murmers Eileen. Elkins shakes her head. "Oh no," she says pleasantly. "No, no, no. He's really much worse than that, you see, because he's not just a danger to his father. He is a danger to the public at large. And Crouch Sr. must have realized that. He may not have done before the QWC, but after the QWC, he must have. Furthermore, he had just dismissed Winky, which meant that he no longer had anyone to help him control or watch over his highly dangerous prisoner. And as for that Imperius Curse of his...well!" Elkins laughs savagely. "Little Barty kicked its ass, didn't he! No Stockholm Syndrome for little Barty. Ten years of mental domination, ten years of captivity, ten years of being treated like an Unperson, and he still kicked it." Cindy stares at her. "Elkins," she says. "Do you actually *admire* that little psychopath?" "Sometimes," admits Elkins. "Sometimes I do. So. This is now Crouch Sr's predicament. He has a prisoner on his hands. His prisoner is mad, strong, clever, dangerous, and very angry. *And* an unrepentent Death Eater. Crouch does not have the resources to keep his prisoner safely. He no longer has Winky's elf magic to call upon. He no longer has any allies at all, in fact. He works a job. With Winky gone, there is going to be no one at home during the day to keep an eye on his captive, against whose will his Imperius Curse has now been proven unreliable." Elkins pauses to allow Cindy and Eileen to think about this. "So," she says. "What does Crouch do, after putting his son back under the Imperius Curse? What does he do, now that he no longer has all of these womenfolk around to lure him into endangering both himself and the public by taking foolish risks with his son? What does he *do,* now that he has finally banished his wife's shade and by doing so, rid himself of her perniciously Soft influence?" There is a long silence. "Eileen," Elkins says softly. "What would *Brutus* have done?" Eileen looks down at her shoes. "Which one?" she asks. "*Either* one! Come on. What would the ruthlessly hubristic Tough and Steely proponent of ends over means, the tragic hero who is dedicated to the protection of the wizarding world even when it comes at immense personal sacrifice, the man who does not let love -- *any* of the four loves -- dictate his actions, except for that one little slip-up due to his dying wife's baleful influence -- an influence which he has now supposedly *banished* -- what does that man *do* in this situation?" There is an even longer silence. "It wouldn't have had to be cruel, you know," Elkins says gently. "He could have made it humane. Far more humane than death in Azkaban, that's for sure. He wouldn't even have had to do anything, er, Unforgivable, although we know that he didn't exactly balk at that. But it wouldn't have been necessary. His son was back under the Imperius Curse. He was totally helpless. Crouch could have given him something to drink. He could have slipped something into his food. He was a wizard from a fine old pure-blooded family who lived in a big old mansion; I'm sure that he had tons of lethal stuff lying around all over the place. If Crouch had just slipped something into his son's bedtime Ovril -- with steely resolve, with sorrowful wisdom, with loving regret, what have you -- then Barty Jr. wouldn't even have had to suffer the terror of anticipation. It could have been quick, it could have been clean, it could have been merciful, and it could have been *over.* For that matter..." Elkins' voice trails off. Cindy looks up. "What?" she asks. Elkins shakes her head. "No," she says. "It's ugly." "When has that ever stopped you before?" "Well...oh, all right. If Crouch didn't even want to see it, if he just couldn't stand to watch his son die, if he didn't even want to get dirt on his hands directly, then he still had another option. And it's even one that the text goes out of its way to draw to our attention." "Which is?" "Last orders," Elkins says flatly. "Barty Jr. was under the Imperius Curse. His father could have commanded his suicide. And then just left the room, if he had to." "Ew! Elkins!" Cindy stares at her. "And you're always calling *Eileen* Bent?" "It's not her fault," says Eileen, smiling slightly. "She's just had one too many Julio-Claudians." "I'm sure that it never would have crossed Crouch's mind to do such a thing," sniffs Cindy. "We Tough people just don't *think* like that, Elkins!" "Well, I don't know if it ever crossed Crouch's mind or not," replies Elkins. "But it certainly did cross his *son's* mind. And it crossed the author's mind as well." "What?" Eileen frowns. "Where on earth are you getting...oh. *OH! *" She nods and begins flipping rapidly through her copy of _GoF_. "Oh! I know! 'The Unforgivable Curses.'" "Yeah, the DADA lesson. Crouch/Moody really doesn't like it at all when the class laughs at his Imperio'd spider, does he? That upsets him a great deal. It's one of the few places where we ever see him lose his cool. He doesn't lose it nearly as badly as he does with Draco Malfoy, admittedly, and not half so badly as he does in the end game, when he throws his villainous little bwah-hah-hah tantrum, but he does slip there, I'd say. He loses his temper. He's really *stung* by that laughter." "The poor sensitive dear," comments Cindy drily. "And the very first thing that he says after recovering his equilibrium is...?" Eileen finds the right page and begins to read: "'Total control,' said Moody quietly as the spider balled itself up and began to roll over and over. 'I could make it jump out of the window, drown itself, throw itself down one of your throats...'" She shuts the book with a faint shudder. "Ugh," she says. "Yeah. Ugh. It does make you wonder, though, doesn't it, just how stressed young Crouch might have been about that possibility? The passage implies to my mind that somewhere beneath his Imperius- induced haze, he had worried about that rather a lot. Especially after the QWC, I'd be willing to wager." "He was inwardly flinching every time that voice in his head told him to draw himself a nice hot bath, you think?" asks Eileen, with a slightly twisted smile. "I do. I really do. The specter of Imperius-induced suicide is never again raised in the novel, which makes it hard for me not to read that passage as in part a character touch. And am I the only person who reads a trace of remembered fear in Crouch Jr's line in his confession: 'Now it was just Father and I, alone in the house?' Winky was the mitigating influence in that dynamic, wasn't she?" "That's just what I've been saying!" cries Eileen. "I know, I know. But I just can't quite believe that Winky -- or the woman whose role she usurps in the text, for that matter -- could truly have been all *that* significant an influence on Crouch's behavior. Because what Crouch actually does after the QWC is this: he puts his son back under the Imperius Curse. And then he takes him home. And then the two of them continue on precisely as they were. Crouch doesn't even take the precaution of physically restraining his son, even though he no longer has Winky around to help watch over and control him, and even though he now knows that his son could break free from the Imperius at any second. He doesn't take the precaution of clapping him in chains. He doesn't put a body bind on him. He doesn't even lock him up in a *room.* He continues to allow him to roam freely through the house." "Well, we don't really know that," Eileen points out. "Crouch might have locked him in a--" "No, it really doesn't seem that he did, because when Crouch Jr. talks about his father opening the front door to Pettigrew and Voldemort that night, he gives the distinct impression of having been right there to witness it. He provides the detail of Voldemort showing up 'in the arms of his servant Wormtail.' He specifies that his father didn't have time to put up a struggle: 'It was very quick.' And when he talks about the event itself..." Elkins squirms a bit. "Well..." "That sickening grin," says Eileen, with some distaste. "Well, er, yes. I've never claimed that Crouch Jr. didn't have some pretty serious emotional problems, have I? He flashes that insane smile 'as though recalling the sweetest memory of his life,' which really does suggest quite strongly to my mind that he was an on-the- spot eye-witness to his father's being placed under the Imperius Curse. But that means that he must have been hanging around the *foyer,* doesn't it? Right next to the front door? In the middle of the night? Or maybe just trailing Father Dearest around the house, like a bored toddler. Or an imprinted gosling." "An imprinted gosling..." Cindy muses. "Hey, Winky had bound Crouch Jr. to her physically, right? With her elf magic. So maybe Crouch Sr. had done something similar. To keep him close, you know. To keep him in sight. So you could read that as evidence that he was at least trying to minimize the danger." "Minimize the danger? Crouch was still going into the office every day at that point in the story. Who was looking after his prisoner all day long while he was at *work?* He must have been leaving his son alone in the house all day long, just crossing his fingers and hoping that his Imperius Curse would continue to do the trick. His Imperius Curse that had already *failed* him once at the QWC." Elkins shakes her head. "If Crouch had really wanted to minimize the danger," she says. "Then he would have--" "Oh, but come on now, Elkins," says Cindy. "You can't really expect a man to kill his own son, can you?" "Brutus did it." "Yes, but...with his own hands?" "Oh, yes," spits Elkins. "Heaven forbid that Mr. Crouch should have to get blood on his *own* hands. That's what his *Aurors* are for, right? And his *prison.* And his *dementors.*" "Elkins," says Cindy quietly. "Calm down." "I don't like hypocrites. Look, we are asked to believe that until his wife intervened, Crouch had been willing to allow his teenaged son to die of despair and self-induced starvation on the floor of a prison cell, after being driven slowly mad by dementors. That's certainly a far nastier way to go than anything that Crouch would have been likely to dish out in the privacy of his own home. Eileen has suggested that the only reason that he did not in the end allow this to happen was because his dying wife placed unbearable psychological pressure on him to convince him to relent. She has suggested that Crouch had come to believe that he had been totally wrong to give into that pressure. That he had realized that his wife had talked him into doing something that was not only wrong, but also recklessly endangering both his own safety and that of others. That he deeply regretted his decision to accede to her request, and that his resentment over this was underlying his rejection of Winky. She has suggested that by renouncing Winky, Crouch was banishing his dead wife's shade, and thus finally purging himself of her dangerously merciful influence." Elkins takes a deep breath. "So," she says. "If all of that were really the case, then why didn't he just get *rid* of the boy after the QWC? It would have been the prudent thing to do, and it also would have been the logical course of action for someone who was really Tough and Steely and self- sacrificing, and ruthlessly devoted to the protection of the Wizarding World against Dark Wizardry even at great personal cost. For heaven's sake, if he honestly couldn't bear the thought of outright filicide, then he could have turned his son over to the authorities!" "Oh, but you can't really blame him for not wanting to take *that* option," objects Eileen. "He would have been facing life imprisonment himself if he'd done that." "Yes, he might have had to face up to the consequences of his own actions. O horrors." Elkins shrugs irritably. "Oh, well. Like father, like son, I guess. And really, why on earth should we expect any better from Barty Crouch than we do from, say, Peter Pettigrew?" "Oh, now you take that back!" cries Eileen. Elkins smiles meanly. "Shan't," she says. "But you can't really expect--" "Expect *what?* Expect for Crouch to behave responsibly? Expect for him to demonstate something *other* than criminal disregard for other human beings for a change? Well, no. No, I suppose that I really *can't* expect that of him, can I, because that's what Crouch was all about. Not the protection of the public. Not service to the common weal. Not opposition to Dark Wizardry. And *certainly* not self- sacrifice. Disregard for other people. Crouch was all about disregard for other people." "But--" "Disregard for other people, hypocrisy, and narcissism. This is a man who committed crimes against humanity for his own personal benefit and *pretended* that he was doing it because he was a ruthless opponent of dark wizardry, privileging the ends over the means, dedicating his entire life to the protection of the wizarding world and to the service of the commonweal even at immense personal sacrifice. But he won't risk prison for his crimes, he won't take the appropriate actions to protect the world from his son, and he won't even face up to his own undeniable pathology! Instead, he projects it onto the people around him. As if Winky had a thing to do with his son being able to throw off his Imperius Curse!" "Yes, but whose stupid idea was it to bring Barty to the QWC in the first place?" demands Eileen. Elkins shrugs. "Given how Crouch behaves *after* the QWC," she says. "It seems to me that he probably absolutely *relied* on Winky to 'talk him into' doing things like that. Just like he relied on his wife to 'talk him into' doing things like saving his son from prison. That was part of what he depended on them for, surely? To absolve him of responsibility for his own behavior? Really, saving Crouch Jr. from prison and taking him to the QWC both pale in comparison to what Crouch does after the QWC. *Who* was in denial about just how dangerous Barty Jr. was? Neither Mrs. Crouch nor Winky could possibly have known for sure just how strong or just how dangerous that boy was. Crouch *did* know. And yet he did nothing. Tell me something here," she demands. "What woman in Crouch's life was responsible for his actions *after* the QWC?" There is a short silence. "Dear, dear, dear." Elkins sniggers. "Poor old Mr. Crouch. Finally ran right *out* of wives, didn't he? No one left to blame. So sad." "My God." Cindy stares at her. "You really do hate Crouch, don't you?" "Yes," spits Elkins. "I do." "This is beginning to remind me of Cindy's claim that Crouch wasn't truly repentent because his mission to warn Dumbledore had elements of self-interest," complains Eileen. "It's just not fair, Elkins. Crouch shouldn't have to resign himself to being murdered by Voldemort to be considered repentent. And he shouldn't have to resign himself either to life imprisonment or to filicide to be considered truly concerned about the safety of the wizarding world." "And besides," says Cindy. "You can't really tell us that it would have made you like Crouch any better if he had been able to put his helpless Imperio'd son down like a rabid dog, can you? I mean, even leaving aside the fact that there would have been no *plot* if he'd done that, it's...well, it's just not *like* you, Elkins! You *hate* that sort of thing!" Elkins blinks. She frowns. "You're right, you know," she admits slowly. "I really do hate that sort of thing. I don't like murder. I don't like cold-bloodedness. I'm not a big fan of Toughness at all, really, or of callousness, or even of ruthless pragmatism. So ordinarily, yes, I suppose that I would find it rather sympathetic for someone to refuse either to hand his helpless captive over to be psychologically tortured to death in a hellish prison or to kill him in cold blood. But when that someone is Barty Crouch?" Elkins' hobby horse lays back its ears and whinnies dangerously. "When it is *Crouch?*" Elkins repeats. "When that someone is CROUCH? Crouch, who authorized his Aurors to use torture on suspects? Crouch, who allowed them to AK people instead of even bothering to *arrest* them? Crouch, who permitted his Aurors to coerce, torment and kill on the basis of nothing more than the merest *suspicion* of malfeasance? On their merest *whim?*" "Okay, okay," laughs Cindy. "Calm down." "When that someone is *Crouch?*" Elkins repeats, her voice now rising uncontrollably. "Crouch who sent people to prison for life on the basis of no evidence? Sometimes without even benefit of a trial? Who was supposedly willing to bind his son over to torment and death, so long as he didn't have to actually *watch* it? Because he was so very concerned about the safety of the *wizarding world?* So very devoted to the protection of the *public?* Even at great personal *cost?* So very *self-sacrificing?* You're trying to tell me that this man was *squeamish?*" "Geez. Take deep breaths, will you? You're--" "When it's *Crouch?*" shrieks Elkins. "When it's CROUCH? When it's *Crouch,* then it doesn't make me like him. It just *sickens* me! It is absolutely *despicable!*" "Look, would you--" "Gah! As if none of the people he sent to prison or let his Aurors torture and murder had relatives who loved them!" "Calm down, okay? You're--" "Men like Crouch don't have the *right* to be squeamish," snarls Elkins. "Men like Crouch should be getting blood under their *fingernails.* They should be *wading* in it. They should be armpit *deep* in viscera. They should learn how it *smells.*" "Okay, Elkins. Relax. It's all right. He's just a character in a children's book. A really really *minor* character in a--" "CROUCH WAS JUST PLAIN EVIL!" screams Elkins, spit flying from the corners of her mouth. "I HATE HIM I HATE HIM I **HATE** HIM!" There is a short shocked silence. "Well, sure, Elkins," says Eileen reasonably. "But don't feel that you have to hold back on our account. Why don't you tell us all how you *really* feel about Barty Crouch Sr.?" Elkins stares at her, her mouth opening and closing silently, then lets out a single strangled scream. Her horse screams as well and rears up onto its hind legs. Eileen yelps and dives for cover beneath her CRAB CUSTARD table. Cindy hunkers down, ducking flailing hooves, her hands tightened around her Big Paddle. Elkins spits out a word unsuitable for this list and pulls hard on her reins. Her horse screams once more, wheels, and then takes off down the promenade at a fast gallop. Cindy straightens slowly. She stares down the promenade, watching the seagulls rise squawking out of the path of Elkins' horse. "Was it something I said?" she asks. Eileen peers out from beneath her table and shakes her head. "I can't even begin to visualize that thing," Cindy mutters, still staring down the promenade at Elkins' madly galloping horse. "How can a hobby horse rear, anyway? And how can it carry its rider off like that? And surely hobby horses don't even *have* front hooves. Do they?" "It's a runaway metaphor." Eileen crawls out from under the table and begins brushing herself off. "A runaway *mixed* metaphor. I'd just try not to visualize it at all, if I were you. It will only make your head hurt." "Well, okay," Cindy begins. "But..." She trails off as Elkins comes cantering back up to the CRAB CUSTARD table, her high pale hobby horse now flecked with sweat and blowing hard. Elkins slows to a trot, then begins walking her horse in tight circles around the table. She drops the reins and begins rummaging through her pockets, sending stray odds and ends wafting down to the promenade below. "Er...you all right there, Elkins?" asks Cindy. Elkins' hand emerges from one pocket clutched tightly around a small medicine bottle. She fumbles with the child-proof cap, breathing hard, then snarls and raises it to her mouth, cracks it open with her teeth. She shakes three small yellow pills into one palm, tosses them down her throat, closes her eyes, and swallows. Hard. Cindy and Eileen exchange glances. "Elkins?" Elkins raises one trembling hand to her throat. She opens her eyes and glances down to her wrist watch. Her mouth moves silently, counting, counting. "Um." Cindy shifts from foot to foot. "Do you think maybe I should go and get Dr. George?" she whispers to Eileen. "George? *No!*" hisses Eileen emphatically. "*Not* Dr. George, Cindy! For heaven's *sake!*" "Oh." Cindy nods. "Oh, right. That. Well, in that case..." "Have I mentioned," says Elkins calmly, one hand still at her throat, her eyes still fixed on her wrist watch. "That I *really* don't like Barty Crouch Sr.?" "You've mentioned it a few times," answers Eileen politely. "Yes." "That he infuriates me? That I absolutely despise him? That he is capable of rousing in me a sense of moral indignation unmatched by that inspired by any other character? Voldemort included? That I actually *enjoyed* watching him suffer while his son was tormenting him in that little room off the Great Hall right after Harry's name came out of the Goblet? That on rereading, it made me laugh out loud with pure malicious *glee?*" "Yes, I believe that you have mentioned all of those things," says Cindy. "Also that he reminds you of your father." "Yes." Elkins removes her hand from her throat. "Well," she says. "Just so we're clear on that." She looks up from her wrist watch. "At any rate...do I still have foam on my mouth?" "A little." Elkins nods absently and reaches up to wipe it off. "At any rate," she says. "Crouch's actions after the QWC make it very difficult for me to believe that his wife ever had to put all that much pressure on him to get him to agree to rescue their son. He seems far too heavily invested in his son's life for me to believe that. He seems far too determined to keep him alive, and not only alive, but also free from physical restraint. No bonds. No body binds. No locked rooms. It's almost as if he secretly *wants* his son to escape, don't you think? It certainly doesn't reveal too much concern for the common weal, or for the public good. It's appallingly irresponsible behavior. Pathological, really. A pathological behavior pattern that he projects upon others because he can't face up to it himself. Because I do think that he was projecting onto Winky at the QWC, you know. I do think that he was trying to affect a kind of an exorcism." "You do?" Eileen looks up. "Yes. You've convinced me of that. You've convinced me that Crouch was projecting onto Winky at the QWC. I'm not sure that what he was seeing in her was really his wife, though. I think it far more likely that he was seeing himself." "You think that when he was looking at Winky 'as though she were something filthy and rotten that was contaminating his over-shined shoes,' he was seeing *himself?*" Cindy repeats incredulously. "I don't think that Mr. Crouch liked himself very much," says Elkins quietly. "I don't really think that he was lying, you know, when he claimed to despise and detest the Dark Arts and all those who practice them. But the Unforgivable Curses *are* Dark Arts, aren't they? Really," she asks. "Would *you* like yourself very much, if you were Bartemius Crouch?" "Uh-huh. And *who's* the one projecting here?" demands Cindy. "Elkins said before that she reads Crouch as a narcissist," Eileen reminds her. "Someone who sees others only as reflections of himself." Elkins nods. "I do read him that way," she says. "And I think that his denunciation of Winky was in part an expression of self-hatred. But really, it works fine for me either way. Whether you think that he was seeing himself or his wife in Winky, the basic principle remains the same. After all, I'm sure that Crouch saw himself in his wife, too. "What I can't see, though," she continues. "Is his renunciation of Winky as a *successful* banishment. Because really, it didn't change anything, did it? After the QWC, Crouch remains every bit as negligent as he was before. Even more so, really. So I can't read it as an exorcism. I read it as a failed exorcism. *Another* failed exorcism." "Another failed exorcism?" asks Eileen. "Parallel scenes." "Oh." Eileen nods. "Oh, yes, I see," she says. "'I have no son.'" "Yes. 'I have no son' was a failed exorcism, because Crouch reneged on it one year later. And its parallel, his denunciation of Winky, is also a failed exorcism, because after it, his behavior in regard to his son continues unchanged." "You do realize, of course," Eileen says, with a slighty Malfoyish smirk. "That you're only making him *more* sympathetic with all of this? At least from a Bleeding Heart perspective, you are. I just claimed that Crouch fell into error due to his love for his wife and his overwhelming sense of True Wizarding Honour. But here you have him erring out of love for his son as well, a love so powerful that it overrides even the most compelling practical reasons not to continue to show him mercy." "Love?" Elkins stares at her. "Who said anything about love? Or about mercy, for that matter?" Cindy and Eileen both stare right back at her. "You think *that's* why Crouch wanted so very badly to keep his son alive?" demands Elkins. "And not only to preserve his life, but also to allow him a kind of perverted illusion of independence? Under the Imperius Curse and kept indoors, yet never actually physically restrained? In full view of others, and yet invisible? Capable of walking right up to the front door, but never of passing beyond it? Permitted a kind of sick twisted parody of autonomy? Turned into a...a kind of a *meat marionette?* You think that was done out of *love?*" "Well, I--" "That's not love," snaps Elkins. "That bears about the same relationship to love as rape does to sex. I don't think that Crouch was about love, really. That's not his role. It's not his function. It's not what he's all about." "I don't--" "Haven't you ever noticed that there's a distinct *pattern* to the subplots and running motifs with which Crouch is associated throughout _Goblet of Fire?_" asks Elkins. "These are the things that touch on Crouch. The Imperius Curse. The Unforgivable Curses in general. Memory Charms. Azkaban. Dementors. Insanity. Human rights violations. Mass hysteria. House Elves. Father-son relationships." "I--" "Don't you see the pattern here? Crouch is connected to all of those subplots and running motifs that center thematically on the denial or negation of *volition.* He is connected to everything in the book that deals with these issues: control, coercion, power, servitude, domination, the loss of individual freedoms and autonomy. The negation of individuation. The negation of personal *choice.* That's where Crouch lives. Whenever you see Barty Crouch in this novel, there's a thematic thread dealing with that entire conceptual cluster not too far away. He's bound to those themes even more securely than his son was bound to Winky at the QWC." "But--" "Crouch is not about *love,*" Elkins spits. "Crouch is about domination. Crouch is about narcissism. Crouch is about coercion. Crouch is about control. But primarily, Crouch is all about the denial of volition. And that's not compatable with love. How can you love other people if you don't even respect their right to exist *as* other people? Confronted with that which he chose to define as 'Other,' Crouch was only capable of two reactions, it seems. Either he tried to get it as far away from himself as possible, by renouncing his affiliation with it completely, or he tried to force it to *change,* to no longer be Other anymore, to instead be a mirror that would reflect him as he wished to believe he really was. Isn't that what the Imperius Curse is all about, really? It's about denying the autonomous existence of the Other. It's about narcissism: turning another person into your Mirror of Erised, forcing another to reflect nothing back at you but your own desires. It's about the negation of human individuality. The negation of freedom of choice. "As are all of the Unforgivables, really," Elkins adds, after a moment's thought. "They're all about the negation of volition. That's the real reason that I think that they're 'Unforgivable,' you know. In the Potterverse, choice *is* a rather important concept." "But--" "I'm sure that Crouch believed that he loved his son," Elkins says. "I'm absolutely positive of that. I'm sure that he told himself that he was taking such pains to preserve his son's life not only to honor his wife's last wishes, but also because he truly and genuinely loved his son. But I'm not altogether convinced that Barty Crouch Sr. really understood the meaning of that word. I don't think that he really got that whole love concept any better than Voldemort does." "Slander," says Eileen flatly. "Is it? The Crouch family plotline is awfully strongly tied to Voldemort, isn't it?" "Crouch *Junior* is linked to Voldemort," Eileen corrects her. "Through the parricide motif and its attendant symbolism. But Crouch Senior is not." "Isn't he? Who is Crouch Jr's *second* father? His substitute father? The father to whom he dreams of proving himself worthy? Voldemort may be a parricide, but he presents as a father figure in the graveyard, doesn't he? And not just as a father figure, but as a representative of a very specific *aspect* of paternity? Father as Critic? Father as Enforcer? Father as Disciplinarian? Father as *Judge?*" Eileen opens her mouth, then closes it. "He presents, in fact," Elkins continues. "As a rather domineering father figure. A tyrannical father figure. A father figure who prides himself on being able to *conquer death itself.* Whose followers call themselves 'Death Eaters,' who is associated with the yew, whose familiar is a man-eating snake. Who demands absolute obedience from his servants, his children. Who demands that they subsume their own individual identities into his own. Metaphorically, he wants to *eat* them. He is oral aggression personified. He is the *Devouring* Father. "And he also presents," she adds. "As a very very *disappointed* father. Doesn't he. Disappointed. Reproving. Injured. Betrayed by his own children. He is a father who tells his erring son Avery 'I do not forgive' and punishes him harshly for his transgressions, yet in the end spares him, declaring his expectation of receiving repayment for his clemency. Of receiving repayment on a *debt.* Repayment in the form of thirteen years of *service.*" "I--" Eileen begins. "Why did Crouch place his son under the Imperius Curse when he realized that he was still devoted to Voldemort's cause?" demands Elkins. "Why did he keep him around even after Bertha Jorkins not only discovered him, but also overheard him saying something so damning that when Voldemort hears of it, he will return to England in full confidence that he can rely on Crouch Jr's devoted service? Why is he so determined to keep him safe from harm? Why does he remain so determined even after the QWC, when it becomes clear that his son is strong, powerful, dangerous, mad, and still unrepentent?" "Because--" "Not because he loved his wife," answers Elkins harshly. "Not because he loved his son. Not because he was merciful. And certainly not because he was *squeamish.* But because his son *was* still unrepentent. That's why. Because if Barty Jr. had died with his loyalty and his allegiance still intact, with his *Otherness* still intact, then Barty Jr. would have *won.* And Crouch wasn't willing to allow that. He wasn't going to let his son win. He wasn't going to allow him to be Other. Not even in death. Crouch wanted that boy to reflect him in more ways than just carrying his name. Crouch wasn't even willing to cede his son to human volition; you think that he was going to cede him to *death?*" Elkins clasps her hands over each other, trying to stop their now quite violent shaking. She takes a deep breath. "Voldemort presents as a father figure in the graveyard." she says again, very softly. "And he is strongly textually linked to Crouch Sr. Do you want to know why I think that Crouch Sr. was so terribly invested in keeping his son alive? Do you? Do you really? I think that it was because obedience was a virtue that Mr. Crouch wanted to teach his son. It was a virtue that he wanted to teach him before he died." There is a very long silence. "You know, Elkins," Eileen says softly, at length. "The text really doesn't invite us to equate Voldemort with Crouch Sr. nearly as strongly as it does to equate him with Crouch Jr. It is Crouch Jr. who *literally* serves Voldemort. It is Crouch Jr. who is *explicitly* compared with him, and not just by the narrative voice, either. Even by the character himself. The text may nudge us to equate Voldemort with Crouch Sr. But it outright begs us to equate him with Crouch's son." "Oh, it most certainly does!" agrees Elkins. "That connection is made *quite* explicit in the text. So what do we make of that? What does that tell us about the relationship between Crouch and his son? What does it signify that Crouch and his son share the same name? That over the course of the novel, their identities are confused, reversed, conflated? What do we make of the difference between Crouch Jr's conscious identification with Voldemort and Crouch Sr's unconscious one? Between Crouch Jr's explicit allegiance and service, and Crouch Sr's implicit allegiance and service? Conscious and unconscious. Explicit and implicit. Open and hidden. What are we to make of that? What is the traditional relationship between hypocrite fathers and their rebellious sons?" She looks from Cindy to Eileen, then back again. "What do you think that Crouch Sr. really wanted?" she asks. "In his heart of hearts. What did he want more than anything else in the world?" "For his wife to be alive, his son dutiful, and his family not in disgrace," answers Eileen promptly. "And also probably to be going out with the Fudges." Elkins blinks. "Oh," she says. "Er...right. Well, yes. Okay. Actually, I guess you're probably right about that. Okay, allow me to rephrase. What was something that he wanted very badly?" There is silence. "Badly enough to have a bit of a 'mania' about it?" prompts Elkins. "Well," says Cindy slowly. "According to Sirius, he wanted to catch just one last Dark Wizard..." "Right. To regain his lost *popularity.* But you have to have Dark Wizards *around* before you can start catching them, don't you? Crouch was a war-time politician. His wagon was hitched to Voldemort's star. When Voldemort fell, so did he. So what do you think that he might have secretly desired? What was his hidden wish? What did Crouch Sr. want that was so dreadful, so utterly unacceptable, that he would never have been able to admit to it? Not even to himself? "Why did Crouch become so apoplectic at his son's sentencing?" demands Elkins. "Why did he react that way? What was he really *seeing,* do you think, when he looked down at his son in the dock? At his son, who shared his name? At his son, who stood accused of *trying to restore Voldemort to power?*" "And of planning to resume the life of violence that he had led before Voldemort's fall," murmers Cindy. Eileen stares up at Elkins. "Parallel scenes," she whispers. "You insisted on claiming that Crouch was seeing himself in Winky when he denounced her. Because you see him as a narcissist. As somebody who sees himself in others." Elkins nods slowly. "You see him," says Eileen. "As someone who stares at his own *reflection.* The mirror reverses..." "The mirror reverses," agrees Elkins quietly. "But that which the mirror reverses, it also always reflects." ****************** Elkins ********************************************************************** REFERENCES This post is continued from part five. It is primarily a response to messages #45402 (Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero), #45693 (Crouch and Winky) and #46923 (It's All Winky's Fault), but it also cites or references message numbers 37476, 38380, 39102, 43010, 44258. For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 03:47:36 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:47:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Through A Glass, Darkly (7 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47934 Seven Through A Glass, Darkly ------------ Elkins sits at her computer, trying to think of how to construct the TBAY opening of part seven of her Crouch post. She tries to remember where she last left TBAY!Elkins, TBAY!Eileen, TBAY!Cindy. She is finding it hard to concentrate. It is early morning, the time of day when it is most difficult for her to see the text on her computer monitor at all clearly. The morning sunlight casts the screen into shadow. When she looks at her computer, Elkins cannot see much of anything beyond her own reflection, her own face staring back at her from out the glass. "Elkins" is not Elkins' real name. ----------------- "But this is also a misrecognition in another sense: I recognize the "miss", the gap between my self and my image, and, in doing so, I am alienated from myself. Once again, I create a self before the mirror: this time, in the sense that I stand before it, to create this uncanny double outside of myself, which is me." -- Jacques Lacan [1] ------------ "You see Barty Jr. as a mirror to his father," says Eileen, staring up at Elkins, who looks unusually drawn and haggard high upon her pale horse. Elkins nods. She smiles strangely. "Hypocrites," she says. "Really shouldn't go messing around with mirrors." ====================================================================== Hypocrites should not mess with mirrors. I see Barty Jr. as a mirror to his father, a relationship which is emphasized by their shared name. He is his father's negative: light to his dark, youth to his age, weak to his strong, reactive to his active, submissive to his dominant, receptive to his projective. To the extent that he physically resembles his mother, and to the extent that he so often seems to be playing a kind of dark rendition of the Sleeping Beauty myth -- always waiting in bondage or otherwise dormant for some powerful male icon to come along to release him, to "awaken" him -- we might also say that he is feminine to his father's masculine. He is his father's reflection, moon to his sun. He is Crouch's shadow self, who expresses and makes manifest those desires to which Crouch himself cannot admit. On one level, Barty Junior is a disobedient son. On another, however, he is anything but. He is dutiful, in that he reflects his father's suppressed desires. Crouch Sr. upholds himself as an enemy of Dark Wizardry. On the conscious level he does not want Voldemort to return. But on another level, he would like nothing better, because his political fortunes are invested in the atmosphere of hatred, fear and paranoia that Voldemort represents. Crouch's hidden desire for Voldemort's return is acted upon by his son, who consciously tries to restore Voldemort to power. Crouch exerts his will to bend others to his own desires and to force them to subsume their identities into his own. He casts memory charms, he uses the Imperius Curse, he dominates his slaves and his children, he demands obedience. He gives orders. His son cites as his greatest ambition the desire to serve. He subsumes his identity into that of other people: he adopts others' personae, he acts on other people's desires. He falls prey to Imperius, to dementor madness, to veritaserum. He follows orders. Crouch used the Aurors as tools to facilitate his own rise to power. His son impersonates an Auror in order to become a tool to facilitate another's rise to power Crouch authorized others to use the Unforgivable Curses; he also used them himself, but only in secret. His son first uses them illegally, and then, as Moody, openly, with the authorization of another. When faced with an unbearable situation, Crouch retreats into an idealized fantasy of a vanished past. His son retreats into an idealized fantasy of a vanished future. Crouch professes his desire to bring Dark Wizards to justice, while privately allowing them to escape the consequences of their own actions. His son escapes the consequences of his own actions, while professing his desire to see others forced to pay for their misdeeds. Crouch served the evil that Voldemort represents, while claiming himself to be opposed to it; eventually he is forced unwittingly to serve. His son swore his loyalty to Voldemort, yet by unwittingly thwarting his father's political schemes, saved the wizarding world from a restoration of the evil that Voldemort stands to represent. Crouch tells lies that he desperately tries to believe to be the truth. His son never once accepts his own masquerade as the truth, yet even within it, remains peculiarly honest. Crouch merely pretends to be a fanatic. His son really is one. Crouch's son is his hypocrisy made manifest. And Crouch himself cannot bear the sight of it. He tries to cut himself off from it at the sentencing, by denying his relationship to it. He tries to renounce it, he tries to shut it away. In the end, however, he cannot sever himself from his shadow self. Instead, he brings it back home, to keep it close yet hidden, in plain sight and yet obscured from view. Because he cannot rid himself of his other half, he tries instead to sublimate it. In his confession, Barty Jr. will say: "Then I had to be concealed. I had to be controlled." The language is suggestive. It is how people speak of their darker impulses, their forbidden desires. They must be contained. They must be concealed. They must be controlled. But in the end, Crouch's darker impulses cannot be concealed, and they cannot be controlled. Invisibility Cloak, Imperius Curse, locked indoors, guarded by Winky -- none of it suffices. Crouch's ugly secret is always on the verge of exposure. Bertha Jorkins discovers it. It escapes at the QWC. It is nearly uncovered by Amos Diggory and Arthur Weasley. Eventually it breaks free altogether. Crouch and his son, image and reflection, trade places. Crouch passes through the looking glass to become himself the reflection, the moon to Voldemort's sun, the secret that must be concealed, controlled, hidden from view, ultimately buried. His son emerges from the mirror to become the active agent, the image; he walks out into the light and into the world, to act in his father's stead, carrying his father's name. In the end, Crouch Jr. becomes what all sublimated shadow selves eventually become. He becomes the law of the mirror. He becomes Nemesis. ================================================================== "Crouch Sr. wanted to make the world his mirror," Elkins says. "Or perhaps his hall of mirrors, an endless corridor of looking glasses that would reflect nothing but his own wishes and desires right back at him. He wanted to make the world his Mirror of Erised, showing him nothing but what he most wanted to be. But there was something very important that he forgot. Something about the nature of mirrors." "That the mirror always reverses that which it reflects," whispers Eileen. Elkins nods. "Mirrors are always dangerous. Broken mirrors most of all. But they are particularly dangerous for people who aren't honest with themselves. For people who try to live a lie. Who aren't what they pretend to be. They are particularly dangerous," she says. "For *hypocrites.* Hypocrites, and people whose motives are not pure. We learned that all the way back at the end of PS/SS, didn't we? That men with two faces would do well to stay away from mirrors? "Oh," Elkins mutters to herself in a low rapid whisper. "Oh, Crouch should not have forgotten that. He should not have forgotten that. He *really* should not have forgotten that about mirrors." Cindy and Eileen exchange worried glances. "In fact," says Elkins. "*Neither* of them should have, should they? Neither of the Crouches should have forgotten about mirrors. Why *didn't* Barty Jr. think to look in that Foe-Glass of his? Was there something there that he couldn't face? Something that he was afraid he might *see*? There's a very fine line between a Mirror of Erised and a Foe-Glass, you know. Sometimes it's hard even to tell the difference between them." "Elkins," whispers Eileen. "'For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.'" "Elkins, please stop this," says Eileen. "You're beginning to scare me." Elkins blinks. "Am I?" she asks. Eileen nods. "A little bit," she says. "Just a little." Elkins looks down at her. "Do you want to know what scares me, Eileen?" "I--" "Bulging eyes. Bulging eyes scare me." "Bulging eyes?" repeats Cindy blankly. Elkins nods. She reaches into her satchel and pulls out her copy of GoF. She hands it down to Cindy. "Read it," she says. "The passage is marked." Cindy opens the book to the marked page. She looks down at it. She begins to read: ---------- "'I will be his dearest, his closest supporter....closer than a son....' "Moody's normal eye was bulging, the magical eye fixed upon Harry. The door was barred, and Harry knew he would never reach his own wand in time...." ------------ Cindy looks up at Elkins, who nods sickly. "That's the only place in the entire novel where Moody's eye is ever described as 'bulging,'" she says. "*Either* of his two eyes. Ever. I know." She looks down at Cindy and Eileen, her eyes large and troubled behind her glasses. "I know," she says, in a small voice. "I checked." There is a short silence. "Twice," she adds, in an even smaller voice. "Elkins--" Cindy begins. Elkins shakes herself, then continues rapidly: "It's not a word that JKR uses to describe eyes all that often. She hardly ever uses it at all, in fact. Once to refer to Filch. Once to refer to a dragon's eye. No place else. Except, of course, when they belong to Crouch." "Or to his son," points out Eileen. "Except when they belong to Bartemius Crouch. Why didn't he look in the Foe-Glass? What was he afraid that he might see in there? 'I'm not really in trouble until I see the whites of their eyes,' he told Harry. And he was right about that, wasn't he? The eyes were what he should have watched out for. That's when he was really in trouble. "'You did not conquer him - and now - I conquer you!' That's the last thing that Crouch Jr. says under his own volition, you know. In a sense, those are his last words. Conquest," Elkins repeats despairingly. "Conquest, and the law of the mirror. Crouch through the looking glass. Reversal complete. In the end, you know," she says. "In the end, he truly *was* his father's son. Do you know what the best thing about being adopted is?" Eileen blinks. "The, uh. The what?" she asks. "The best thing about being adopted," Elkins tells her. "Is that you can make it to the age of thirty, and still be able to look in the mirror without flinching." There is a short silence. "Well...sometimes," amends Elkins. "Sometimes you can. But that's what scares me, Eileen. Bulging eyes. Bulging eyes...and mirrors. And people who try to make other people into their mirrors. They scare me the most of all." "And that's how you view Crouch?" "And that's how I view Crouch." ====================================================================== "If you accuse my elf, you accuse me, Diggory!" I read Crouch as solipsist, or perhaps a narcissist: as someone who only recognizes other people as extensions of himself. I see that as his hamartia, and that also as his primary thematic role in the text. He stands for the denial of individuality and the negation of the volition of others. He stands as the agent of identity loss, the ultimate antithesis of choice. In this respect, I see Crouch as thematically tied to the House Elf subplot, to Harry's separation from his parental protections, and also to the running motif of the Unforgivable Curses, those spells which exist to strip an individual of the capacity for personal volition. Ultimately, Crouch Sr. is a personification of soul murder: he is the Dementor's Kiss. This aspect of Crouch's character manifests itself in a number of different ways. We see it in his insistence on naming his son after himself. We see it in his apparent inability to remember Percy's name. We see it in his denial of human rights, in his fondness for the UCs, and in his penchant for casting magics of mental domination on others. He places Bertha Jorkins under a memory charm. He places his son under the Imperius Curse. He renounces both Winky and his son for the same crime: the crime of disobedience. And I think that we see it also in his obsession with his public image, his obsession with how he is perceived by others, with how he is *reflected.* Crouch views other people as mirrors to himself; he looks to his reflection in their eyes to know what he truly is. When the reflection that he sees there does not match what he wants to be, he becomes angry and lashes out. He tries to banish the faulty mirror from his sight or alternatively, to force the mirror to show him as he wants so very badly to be seen. I think that we see this in his treatment of both Winky and Bertha Jorkins. But most of all, I'd say that we see it in his appalling treatment of his son. ====================================================================== "You're always going *on* about that," objects Eileen. "About how Crouch treated his son. What on earth was so appalling about the way he treated Barty Jr.?" Elkins stares at her. "Are you *joking?*" she asks. "No, I'm not joking! He saved his son's life, didn't he? What's so terrible about that?" "I'd like to know too, Elkins," says Cindy. "You said something like this all the way back in February, and I didn't get it then, either. I have to admit that being imprisoned for over a decade by your dad and a house elf isn't exactly a walk on the beach, but I also didn't hear Crouch Jr. complaining about it." "Didn't you?" demands Elkins. "I did. In his confession, he tells Dumbledore that his father left his mother to die in his place in solitary confinement in a cell in Azkaban, reliving the worst memories of her life, and then to be buried on the prison grounds by Dementors. And his editorial comment on that? 'He loved her as he had never loved me.' What does that tell you about how young Bartemius *himself* must have viewed his treatment at his father's hands?" "Crouch Jr. should be *thanking* his dad for bailing him out of Azkaban," says Cindy angrily. "Crouch Sr. risked what was left of his tattered reputation to sneak Crouch Jr. out of Azkaban. And how does Crouch Jr. repay the favor? By killing his dad." "No less than Crouch deserved," snarls Elkins. "Elkins!" Eileen cries. "How can you *say* that? Crouch got more than anyone deserves. The punishment exceeded the crime." "The punishment did *not* exceed the crime!" yells Elkins. "It didn't even come *close!* It was a slap on the wrist! Parole! A furlong! A...a...a...a...a *parking ticket!*" "What? What is *wrong* with you? Just look at what *happened* to the poor man, will you? To start off tamely, he lost his power and reputation. He lost his family, in different manners, his wife, his son, Winky. I mean, he just lost *everything.* And then--" "*Everything?*" Elkins shakes her head. "No, Eileen," she says, dangerously quietly. "No. Not everything. *That.* Was his son. His *son* was the one who lost everything. What Crouch himself lost? What Crouch lost was nothing that the world would greatly miss." Eileen stares at her. "This isn't like you," she says. "Crouch got what he had coming to him." "This isn't *like* you. This--" "Really, Elkins," Cindy says, frowning. "What did Crouch Sr. do to deserve his unfortunate transfiguration into a bone, other than show mercy to his no-account, good-for-nothing, disgrace-to-the-family- name offspring?" "What did he *do?*" Elkins repeats, her voice rising. "What did he *DO?* Are you serious? Did we even read the same *book* here? He--" "Being under Imperius curse was a heap nicer than Azkaban," says Eileen, reading directly from her CRAB CUSTARD manifesto. "Especially since he was guilty." "Was it? You think so? You think so, do you? Well. For one thing," Elkins tells her furiously. "Crouch Jr. wouldn't have *been* suffering in Azkaban for very much longer, would he? He would have been *dead.* Which given what eventually happened to him, would have been a mercy. But even assuming that the choice there really *had* been one between suffering further in prison or accepting subjugation to his father's will..." "Yes?" "Well." Elkins says tightly. "Voldemort gives Harry that very same choice in the graveyard, doesn't he? He tortures him, and then he tries to use Imperius to force Harry to beg him for surcease. To ask to be spared further suffering. We see Harry offered that choice: the pleasant blissful surrendering to another's hostile will, or torment and death on his own terms. And with his own volition still intact. What is easy. Or what is *right.* Harry chooses the latter. No, Eileen," Elkins spits. "No. What Crouch did to his son was not 'heaps nicer than Azkaban.' It was not 'heaps nicer' than anything. It was not nice at all. It was *Unforgivable.*" "Barty Jr.," Eileen begins crossly. "Was an ungrateful--" "UNGRATEFUL?!" Elkins screams. She kicks savagely at her hobby horse, which snorts and charges right for Eileen's CRAB CUSTARD table. Eileen yelps and throws herself to one side, dodging the flying paper cups and plastic spoons which fly into the air as the table crashes to one side. "UNGRATEFUL?" Elkins shrieks, reaching down as her horse thunders past to grab Eileen by her featherboas. "UNGRATEFUL?" "Ecki..." gasps Eileen, clutching at her neck as she is dragged along behind Elkins' horse. "Elki..." "*Elkins!*" Cindy says sharply. "No *dragging!*" Elkins snarls something incoherent and pulls her horse to an abrupt halt. She looks down at Eileen, who is scrambling to get her legs under her and clawing wildly at her featherboas. "No dragging, no drawing, and absolutely no *throttling!* says Cindy sternly. "It's all right here in the rulebook." She waves her TBAY Rulebook menacingly in the air. Elkins narrows her eyes, then drops the end of Eileen's featherboa. Eileen falls to the ground, gasping. "Ungrateful," Elkins repeats, glaring down at her. "Ungrateful. Have you ever given any thought to the precise manner in which Crouch *chose* to imprison his son, Eileen? Have you? *Have* you?" Eileen coughs weakly. "No trampling either, Elkins," cautions Cindy. "Just so you know." "Crouch Jr. was always with Winky," Elkins says, ignoring her. "He was permitted to speak to no one else. He was to remain under an Invisibility Cloak night and day. Night. And. Day. In other words, he was compelled to sleep in it. But he was also kept in *public* areas of the house, wasn't he? Right out in the open, where visitors like Bertha Jorkins could hear him, where he could be on hand to witness Voldemort and Pettigrew's arrival at the front door. Public areas of the house. In full view, and yet invisible. Capable of standing at the door, but never of opening it. Allowed to hang around right in front of the windows, right in the public areas of the house in his Invisibility Cloak, but actually permitted out of doors rarely enough that it had been *years* since he had been outside when he was taken to the QWC. Years." "I--" Eileen gasps, then starts coughing again. "He was occasionally granted rewards for good behavior," continues Elkins. "Except that actually, 'rewards' isn't the word that he first thinks to use to describe them, now, is it? The first word that he uses in his confession is 'treats.' *Treats,*" she spits. "Sometimes a single word really can speak volumes, can't it? 'Treats.' Infantalizing. Degrading. Dehumanizing, even: treats are what you give to *dogs,* aren't they? What you give to dogs as a reward when they sit up and *beg.* Even under the veritaserum, Crouch himself seems to realize that the word is far too revelatory. Too humiliating. He corrects himself almost instantly, changing it to 'rewards for good behavior.' Far more dignified, that. Rewards for good behavior are what *prisoners* get, after all. But it's not the first word that he thinks to use, now, is it? That word," she snarls. "Is *treats.*" "Well, really, Elkins," begins Cindy. "He--" "And then," Elkins continues, now literally shaking with rage. "And then, of course, and then, and *then* there's that Imperius Curse. Weren't we talking a while back, Eileen, about the closest real life analogue to the Imperius Curse? I seem to remember that we thought that it would probably be *drugs,* didn't we? Drugs that sap the will? Drugs that render people unusually pliable? Unusually *suggestible?* Hypnotic agents?" Eileen, still gulping air, nods weakly. "For heaven's sake, doesn't this combination of factors suggest anything to *anyone* other than me?" demands Elkins furiously. "Am I really the only person in the entire *universe* who read the book this way? Presumed dead. Social isolation. Denied sunlight. 24 hour surveillance. Infantilizing language. Degrading treatment. In plain sight, but made invisible. Rewards granted for compliance -- and presumably, by the same token, withheld in response to defiance. Hypnotic agents. "What does that combination of factors *remind* you of?" she yells down at Eileen, who flinches. "What does it *suggest* to you, O fellow lover of Solzenitsyn?" Eileen stares at her. "ANSWER ME!" screams Elkins, now looking quite mad. "What. Does. That. *SOUND* like to you?" "It sounds like brainwashing," says Cindy quietly, from behind her. Elkins whirls around in her saddle. "YES!" she screams. "Thank you! Yes! That's *precisely* what it sounds like! Crouch wasn't just keeping his son a prisoner. He was attempting indoctrination." ===================================================================== >From the instant that Crouch Jr. described his treatment as his father's prisoner in the veritaserum scene, I instinctively read it as an attempt at indoctrination. Every single thing that we learn about how Crouch saw fit to keep his son seems to me to point unerringly in that direction. Imperius. Invisibility Cloak, yet kept in public view. Presumed dead. Permitted to speak to no one. Watched night and day. Denied sunlight. Denied solitude. Given rewards for good behavior, rewards which went by the degrading name of 'treats.' Encouraged to view his two captors in the dual roles of Merciful Intercessor and Strict Disciplinarian. Frankly, I'm surprised that Crouch didn't think to shave his son's head. It would have been in keeping with everything else that we hear about how he chose to treat his son after he learned that he was unrepentent, all of which reads to me like a textbook case of a direct and deliberate assault on a captive's sense of identity, on his sense of self. Crouch kept his son in a public part of the house, in full sight and yet unseen, a circumstance that necessitated that Crouch Jr remain covered by an Invisibility Cloak at all times. "Night and day," which means that he must also have been forced to sleep in it. Why? For that matter, why was he kept in a public part of the house at all? The house elves can teleport. Winky could have helped to care for young Crouch no matter where he had been stationed, and it would have been far safer to keep him in a locked and warded room or wing, not somewhere where any visitor to the house, like Bertha Jorkins, could have stumbled across him. Crouch had a house elf. House elves come with manors and mansions, large houses. Are we to believe that he couldn't have found someplace else for his son to live, or at the very least to sleep nights? A suite without windows? A cellar? An attic? Why was it necessary for Crouch Jr. to wear an Invisibility Cloak "night and day?" Why have him *sleep* in the thing? Why keep him in public areas of the house? Crouch kept his son in a public part of the house, in full sight and yet unseen, even while he slept, in order to make him not only be invisible, but also *feel* invisible. To turn him into an Unperson. To erode his sense of self. To subvert his sense of identity. To break his will. To turn him into an empty shell, a receptacle ready and waiting to be filled up with whatever it pleased his father to pour back into him. The dissociated young Crouch that we see in canon is in large part a creation of his father. The reason that he is able to assume another's identity well enough to fool even Dumbledore is because he has precious little left of his own. His father spent over a decade systematically stripping him of his own identity, trying to empty him, to make him hollow, in the hopes of filling him back up with his own essence, of turning his son into a different kind of mirror: a mirror that for once would *not* reverse that which it reflected, a mirror that Crouch himself would not flinch to look upon. But he only partially succeeded. The Crouch Jr. that we see in canon is a reflective surface, and he is hollow. But the father that he has invited into himself to fill the void of his raped personal identity is not Barty Senior. Instead, it is Voldemort. In the end, the metaphor reaches its full completion. Barty Jr. is dementor-kissed. He becomes fully hollow; he loses his very soul. ==================================================================== "Don't ask me to pity Crouch, Eileen," Elkins says in a low shaking voice. "I don't pity him. The man set out to destroy his son's sense of self. Ruthlessly. Deliberately. Methodically. He forged the blade that killed him. He did it with his own two hands. It took him ten years, but he did it. He managed it in the end." There is silence. "But Elkins," Eileen says quietly. "He repents." Elkins stares at her for a long, long moment, then turns away. "I don't care," she mutters. "He repents. He sees his sin, and he--" "I don't *care!* That man tried to destroy another person's capacity for volition, Eileen! Doesn't that mean anything to you?" "But he gets a redemption scene!" wails Eileen. "You can't deny that the text invites us to sympathize with him there, can you? Just look at what David wrote, back in Message 38368! He said: > 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." "Angels?" Elkins repeats incredulously. "Angels rejoicing in *heaven?* Oh, no." She shakes her head. "No, no, no, no, no. Some things are just not that cheaply paid for, Eileen." "But...but...but Elkins, you *love* redemption scenarios. You adore Snape, you plump for RedeemedInDeath!Pettigrew, you *invented* Redeemable!Avery. You've even taken Redeemable!Draco out for a waltz a few times. I've seen you do it. And now you have a character who actually *gets* a redemption scene, right there in the canon, and you remain utterly unmoved? I just can't believe that. It's--" "What part. Of Unforgivable. Do you not *understand?*" yells Elkins. "Crouch set out to destroy another person's individuality. He set out to destroy someone else's *personhood.* And he did it on purpose. For no other reason than the desire to make somebody else into his mirror. That is not something that I forgive. That is not something that *anyone* should forgive. Ever. That is simply foul. It is unspeakable. It is Anathema. It. Is. *Abomination.*" Cindy and Eileen both stare at her. "And when Barty Jr catches up to his father there in the Forbidden Forest," Elkins continues, a febrile light in her eyes. "Do you think what happens next is *murder?* Do you think that Crouch Jr. is a *parricide?* He is not. He is not. He has become something more than that. Something far greater. Not murder. Not parricide. Not vengeance. Not justice. Not even dramatic irony. Something related to all of those things, but older, much older. Something older, something colder, something ancient, possibly even something sacred. The law of the mirror. *Nemesis.* He has become *Nemesis.*" "This isn't like you at all," whispers Eileen. "Nemesis. What you *get* when you sow the wind. And Mr. Crouch certainly did sow it, didn't he. He sowed it well." "But--" "But in the end," Elkins says bitterly. "He still *wins.* Doesn't he. Old Crouch strikes from beyond the grave. Because you can't really kill Barty Crouch, just like you can't really kill Voldemort. How can you kill the lust for dominion? How can you kill the desire to force other people to be what you want them to be? How can you kill disregard for others? How can you kill narcissism? How can you kill the powers of coercion? How can you kill Evil itself? You can't, can you? It just keeps right on coming back. Crouch wanted to suck his son's soul right out of his body. That's *precisely* what he wanted to do to him. He didn't live long enough to manage it completely, but that didn't matter in the end, did it, because his literary double Cornelius Fudge just stepped right up to take his place. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss. Crouch's literary double steps right in with his dementor in the end to finish the job that Crouch had begun. So really, in the end, Crouch won. In the end, he got *exactly* what he wanted for his son. Identity loss. Soul murder. Worse. Than. Death." Elkins sits back in her saddle, breathing hard. "Don't ask me to pity Crouch," she spits. "Don't ask me to sympathize with him. Don't ask me to like him. And *don't* talk to me about angels. Not unless you mean *avenging* angels. Don't tell me that the text invites our sympathies with him. There is nothing to sympathize *with* when it comes to Barty Crouch Sr. He is identity loss personified. He is soul murder. He is the Dementor's Kiss. He is Evil Incarnate." There is a very long silence. "Elkins," says Cindy quietly. "What *is* that horse that you're riding?" Elkins blinks. "What?" she asks. "Your *horse,* Elkins. What is its *name?*" "It..." Elkins shifts uneasily. "It doesn't have a..." "I could have sworn that I saw her up on that high horse during the Twins thread this past summer as well," says Eileen, frowning. "*And* during a Prank discussion shortly after her delurk," says Cindy grimly. She strides towards the horse. "It has a name tag..." Elkins lunges forward, throwing herself across her horse's neck. "No!" she cries, trying to cover up the name tag with her hands. "No! It doesn't have a name. It doesn't...Ow!" she cries, as Cindy starts slapping her hands irritably away. "Ow! Ow, Cindy! Stop that! It's..." "HAH!" cries Cindy savagely. "I KNEW it!" She turns the name tag around so that Eileen can read it. AFFECTIVE FALLACY is what it says. "Elkins!" gasps Eileen, shocked. "Get down from there!" "No!" screams Elkins, wrapping both her arms and her legs around her Affective Fallacy. "No! No! No!" "Elkins, how *could* you? You *know* that's one of the three Unforgivable Fallacies!" "Only in the New Criticism!" cries Elkins. "It's perfectly legal in Reader Response! Nooo!" she screams, as Cindy grabs her by the collar and begins hauling her out of her saddle. "No! No! No! No!" Cindy tosses her roughly to the ground, then slaps Affective Fallacy on the rump. "Go on," she tells it. "Get out of here." The horse snorts, and then lopes off down to the beach, where a group of shippers instantly get into a shoving match over who will get to ride it next. Cindy shakes her head and looks down at Elkins, who is curled in fetal position on the promenade, sobbing weakly. "Hope that helps," she says. Eileen sighs and rubs wearily at one temple. "Elkins," she says reprovingly. "You know that the Affective Fallacy Is Not Fair Play." "But nobody can separate their autobiographical experiences from their reading of the text, Eileen," wails Elkins. "Nobody can divorce their emotional responses from their discussion of the narrative! Nobody can! It's just not possible! We all view the text through the lenses of our own personal experience. It's the only way that we *can* view it. Whenever we read, we're always seeing the text that way. We can see it only through a glass. Through a glass, darkly." "Oh, I know," sighs Eileen. "I know that, Elkins. But it's generally considered good form to *warn* the reader about your Affective Fallacy, you know, so that--" Elkins stares up at her pointedly, her eyes rimmed with red. Eileen blinks. "Oh," she says. "Left it a little late, didn't you?" asks Cindy, glancing up to the subject line blazoned across the sky. "Not to anyone who's really been paying attention." Elkins sniffs and wipes her nose on her sleeve. "I did put the CRABCUSTARD part first, didn't I? I told you there was bias. I told you there was emotion. I told you there was personal identification. I told you there was autobiographical congruence. I played it fair. I *did!*" "Well, okay, Elkins," says Eileen. "Okay. But now that you're down off of that *fallacy* of yours, you can't honestly deny that the text invites our sympathies with Crouch, can you? I mean..." "Oh, of *COURSE* the text invites our sympathies with him!" screams Elkins. "Man gets a redemption scene, doesn't he?" Eileen rocks back on her heels and smirks unbecomingly at Cindy. "Told you," she says. Cindy mutters something under her breath. "Cindy said it wasn't a real redemption scene," Eileen tells Elkins. "What?" Elkins shakes her head. "Oh, don't be silly. Of course it is. Althooough..." She looks up, a somewhat cruel smile on her face. "Although," she says softly. "I could argue against Redeemed In Death Crouch, you know. If I wanted to. I could make that argument. I seriously considered it once. Back in September. I did think about it." "Yes," says Eileen quietly. "I thought that you might have. You see, I've noticed that Affective Fallacy of yours before." "Have you? Yes. Well. You see, if I *wanted* to argue against Crouch's redemption, then I suppose that I would ask you just this one little thing. Just one simple question." Elkins narrows her eyes. "Does he see his sin?" she asks. "Does Crouch ever see his sin?" "Well, of course he--" "Does he? Does he really? Does he comprehend its nature? Does he understand where he went wrong? Does he ever actually *repent?* You cited Crouch's hamartia as his refusal to recognize the autonomy of others, didn't you, Eileen? His disrespect for their independence. His refusal to treat them as people first and foremost. His belief that others should do as he disposed them." "Yes," says Eileen. "I--" "All right. Well, then. Are there any indications that he's actually repented of *any* of that in his last scene? Any indications at all? He knows that he's in trouble, certainly. He knows that the world is in peril, and that it's in some sense his fault. But does he actually comprehend the *nature* of his crimes? Has he come to any real recognition of where he went wrong? Has he really? All that he actually *says* is that he has done a 'stupid thing.' Not wicked. Not evil. Not wrong. Just 'stupid.'" Elkins chuckles softly. "Why, Mr. Crouch still just doesn't get it, does he?" she asks. "He thinks that all that he's committed is a *tactical* error! There's absolutely no sign of any real recognition of the nature of his wrong-doing there at all, is there? Nope. None. Just recognition of a strategic *oversight.* That's not repentence. That's the equivalent of only regretting that you committed a crime because you happened to get *caught.* "And then," she continues, now really warming to her topic. "And then, when you look at the words that he actually uses, at his phrasing, they reveal that even in the midst of his passion, Mr. Crouch has not truly changed. He's still speaking of people in terms that deny their individuality. He speaks of them as possessions. He asks Harry: 'You're not...his?' And then he asks if Harry is 'Dumbledore's.' And he keeps giving orders. 'Don't leave me.' 'Go get Dumbledore.' He clutches onto Harry's robes so tightly that Harry can't even pry him free. If his hamartia is the belief that people should do as he disposes them, that he doesn't have to treat them as people first and foremost, then what does his behavior actually tell us about his spiritual condition? There's actually no sign of any new-found respect for individuality there at all, is there? No sign of any new-found recognition of others' autonomy. No sign that he's given up on expecting others to 'do as he disposes them.' Really, he doesn't seem to appreciate the nature of his sin at *all,* does he? No recognition at all of where he went wrong. No genuine repentence. Nope," Elkins concludes, with undeniable relish. "No, Crouch died in his sin, if you ask me. Oh, he was just *mired* in it, Eileen. Up to his very *neck* in hamartia. Absolutely steeped in moral error. Positively *choking* on perdition." Elkins leans back with a satisfied smile on her face and lights a cigarette. She takes a long slow drag, exhales contentedly, then looks up to notice both Eileen and Cindy staring at her. Her smile falters. She sighs. "Nah," she mutters. "Forget it. Crouch is okay. The angels can have him." Eileen sidles up close to Cindy. "Do you think that Elkins is aware that she's not the one who gets to make those decisions?" she asks, in a low whisper. Cindy shakes her head. "You know, I've often wondered that myself?" she whispers back. "Besides," Elkins adds, ignoring them. "He really is heroic there at the end, isn't he? Even I can't quite help but admire him there. >From the description of his condition, the implication seems to be that he's made his way all the way to Hogwarts on *foot.* Fighting the Imperius Curse every step of the way. Have you ever walked from England to Scotland? I have, and I can tell you: there are stretches of Northumbria that would break *anyone's* spirit. Even without the Imperius Curse to contend with. And he comes so close, doesn't he? He tries so hard, and he comes so close, just to get nailed right when his end is finally in sight. I mean, it's just terrible. The poor man." "So you *do* sympathize with him!" cries Eileen. "What, at the end there?" Elkins laughs. "You mean, when he's clutching Harry's knees and begging him 'Don't leave me?' When he's slipping into memories of days when his wife was still alive and he was proud of his son? When he keeps repeating over and over again that it's all his fault? When he's staggering and drooling all over himself in his effort to deliver his warning to Dumbledore? And then when, after all of that, he still *fails?* Oh, for heaven's sake, Eileen! What do you *think?* Of course I sympathize with him! Do you think that I have no *soul,* woman?" Eileen opens her mouth, then closes it. "I truly do hate Crouch, you know," Elkins tells her earnestly. "I think that in some ways he's the most convincing portrayal of human evil, of human monstrosity, that we've yet seen in the canon. He comes across to me as *real* evil, not just cartoon evil, like his nutty son, or like Voldemort. But at the end there? Well, come on. You *know* what an appalling bleeding heart I am. I even felt a little bit sorry for Voldemort in the graveyard, you know. When he was telling his Death Eaters that his disincorporated exile had been painful?" "You felt sorry for him there," Cindy repeats flatly. "Yeah, I did. I know, I know. It's just pathetic, isn't it? In the end, you know." Elkins pulls herself slowly to her feet. She shrugs helplessly. "In the end," she says. "I always feel sorry for everyone." "Even Barty Crouch?" "Yeah, even Crouch. But I still can't quite bring myself to like him, Eileen. I'm sorry. I just can't. He has the misfortune of being associated with all of the things that I happen to hate the very most in the world. Tyranny. Torture. Brainwashing. Coercion. Narcissism. The negation of volition. Ugh. Ugh. He's just *horrible.* He really is. And--" "And he reminds you of your father," says Eileen. "Well...of both my parents, really. But, yes. That too." Eileen shakes her head. "Elkins," she says. "Is there something that you want to *share* with us about your parents?" Elkins considers the question for a long moment. "Eileen," she says finally. "Do you remember ages and ages ago, all the way back in January, when Cindy offered me that brandy and invited me to sit back and tell her all about exactly why I hate the Imperius Curse so much?" Eileen nods. "Yes, I remember that," she says. "You started to tell some anecdote about your parents, and then you caught yourself and made that little joke about the brandy having been..." She blinks. "Having been, er," she finishes slowly. "Having been laced with veritaserum..." "I thought the brandy made people bloodthirsty," says Cindy, frowning. "No. Not at first," Eileen says. "That came later. In fact," she continues, now staring at Elkins as if she has never seen her before. "In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was Elkins who first *shifted* its meaning in that direction. Just like it was Elkins who first started harping on misdirection as being..." She blinks, then ducks down beneath her CRAB CUSTARD table, emerging a moment later with an old yellowed scroll. She unrolls it gingerly. "'Misdirection,' she quotes. 'The favored pasttime of so many notable SYCOPHANTS.'" Elkins shrugs and looks away. "Indirect means of expression," says Eileen, still staring at her. "Sly, sidelong, allusive..." "Yet ultimately honest," Elkins reminds her. "If also...er." She glances down to the beach, where a group of Sirius and Snape fans are now clustered around Affective Fallacy, shoving at each other while Prank runs circles around them, barking hysterically. She sighs. "If also often notably self-sabotaging," she concludes. No," she says. "No, you know what? I really *don't* want to tell you about my parents. Not even under a pseudonym. Not in front of the 5000 lurkers. And not in front of God. But I really do have a serious, uh, Affective Fallacy problem, let's just say, when it comes to Crouch. Not to mention the Imperius Curse. I just *hate* that Imperius Curse, you know. I really do. Just hate it. I'd rather take a tango with the Cruciatus." "Would you really, Elkins?" asks Eileen. "I, uh..." Elkins blinks at her. "What," she says. "You mean *really?* You mean, uh, like *really* really? Like, if somebody actually offered me the *choice?*" She laughs uneasily. "Aw, come on, Eileen. Cut me some slack here, will you? We can't *all* be sorted Gryffindor, you know. And besides," she adds. "The Crouch that I identify with is the son, remember? Not the father. And he failed that test. He failed it at his sentencing. He failed it when he begged his parents to save him." "Well," says Cindy. "He didn't actually know that he was asking for the Imperius Curse, did he?" "Literally? No. But symbolically? Metaphorically? Thematically?" Elkins sighs. "Yeah," she says. "Actually, I'd say that was *exactly* what he was doing. He was asking to be spared the consequences of his actions, wasn't he? He was pleading for parental intercession, like a child. And he wasn't just behaving like a child, either; he was also asking to be *treated* like a child. Like someone who isn't to be held fully accountable. Children get absolved of responsibility for many of their actions, but they're also denied full freedom of choice. And isn't that the Imperius Curse right there? "So yeah," she concludes. "On the literal level, obviously Barty Jr. wasn't actually asking to be put under the Imperius Curse. But on the metaphoric level, I'd say that was *exactly* what he was asking for." "And he got it," says Eileen. "Well, of course he did." Elkins smiles. "Dramatic irony is a double-edged sword, isn't it? Nemesis cuts both ways. It's not the wishes that go unanswered that you really have to watch out for, you know. It's the wishes that get *granted.* That's part of what makes mirrors so very dangerous." "Man!" exclaims Cindy. "Mirrors really do freak you out, don't they?" "Yes," says Elkins shortly. "They do." She takes off her glasses and begins slowly polishing them on her sleeve. "You know," she says. "Barty Jr. in the Pensieve reminds me a great deal of Peter Pettigrew in the Shack, actually. When he finally breaks down completely, and suddenly the narrative voice starts quite explicitly marking him as regressed. As infantile. He's described as an overgrown baby. Or like Lockhart, stripped of his memories and reduced to a child-like state at the end of CoS. Or like all those DEs in the graveyard..." "...who are Voldemort's erring sons," Eileen finishes for her. Elkins nods. "It seems to be a common affliction among the series' secondary villains, doesn't it? To fail the test of maturity? I really don't think that's at all accidental. We talk a lot on the list, you know, about the extent to which the series is a 'genre soup,' but when push comes to shove..." "It's a bildungsroman." "Yeah. At heart, I'd say it's a bildungsroman. And Book Four is its midpoint. It's the turning point of the entire series. It ends with the chapter title 'the beginning.' It's the point at which Harry is fourteen years old. It's the point at which we first start to see his hormones really kicking in, the point at which romance subplots begin to take on some real importance. It's--" "Adolescence," says Cindy. "Yes. Adolescence. Harry's parental protections fail him one by one in Book Four. His legacy items consistently fail him. His godfather Sirius has no idea what's going on, and doesn't even manage to advise him on the First Task. His enemy can see through his Invisibility Cloak. The Marauder's Map leads him astray, and eventually lends aid to his enemy as well. At the end he loses even his mother's mystical protection against evil. It's also the first book in the series which does not end with some degree of emphasis on Harry's assumption of his parental legacy. No 'only a true Gryffindor...' No 'you are truly your father's son.' No 'James would have done the same.' None of that. Instead, Dumbledore congratulates him on having acquitted himself like an *adult.* "And that's why I think that the parricide motif is so vitally important in GoF," explains Elkins. "It's why I view the entire Crouch subplot as so very important, really. Because as I see it, the Crouch family subplot focuses on developmental issues that are absolutely central to adolescence, as well as to GoF as a whole. They're just everywhere in GoF, down to the detail of having a *sphinx* standing in as the guardian at the end of the Third Task. It's why I think that the dangers facing Harry in Book Four seem to focus so very strongly on assaults not just on his life, but also on his very identity. The Unforgivable Curses are all about identity loss, really, aren't they? Ali said something like that a month or so ago, and I agree with her. She pointed out that the UCs all deny others the right of self-determination. The Imperius quite blatantly so, the AK quite terminally so -- you don't get much less in the way of self-determination than you do when you're dead -- and the Cruciatus..." "Yes," says Cindy. "What about the Cruciatus?" "Well, I think that the way that the Cruciatus Curse is actually *presented,* it does as well. It seems to me that what the text really emphasizes about the Cruciatus isn't that it causes pain, but that it has the capacity to strip its victims of their freedom of volition. We hear about it being used quite specifically for purposes of interrogation. We see Voldemort use it to try to break Harry's will. The true horror of the Cruciatus as it is presented, I'd say, resides in its ability to tempt people to say or do things that they would never ordinarily say or do, things like revealing secret information, things like begging their worst enemy for death. At its most extreme, as with the Longbottoms, it seems to cause madness and amnesia. In other words, identity loss. It seems to me that the text strongly emphasizes *that* as the real horror of the Cruciatus Curse. Not that it causes pain, but that it subverts human volition." "So how does that relate to--" "To adolescence? Well, isn't self-determination the test of adolescence? Standing on your own two feet? Accepting responsibility for your actions? Forging an independent sense of self? *Individuation.* All of which is tied to separation from your parents. Which in turn is thematically linked to...well, to parricide. Parricide is the unhealthy version of the healthy and necessary separation of adulthood. If there's a lesson to be learned from Crouch Jr, maybe it's that when it comes to parricide, an ounce of prevention really is worth a *ton* of cure. I did tell you, didn't I," Elkins asks, smiling. "That a little bit of parricide was a necessary thing?" "In moderation," Eileen reminds her. "In moderation. In principle. So long as you keep it in the realm of the symbolic. Or...you know." Elkins grins wickedly. "Or the *vicarious.*" "So you read Crouch Jr. as a cautionary tale of sorts then?" asks Eileen. "If you had *my* Affective Fallacy," Elkins assures her gravely. "You'd be tempted to read him as a cautionary tale too. Trust me. But yes, I do think that he plays that role in the text, to some extent. He shows what can happen to you if you fail the test of adolescence, the test of individuation. The test that Harry passes in the graveyard. Because, you know, Crouch Jr. isn't just a double to Voldemort. And he's not just a double to his father. And he's not just..." "A double to Neville Longbottom?" Eileen smiles. "Your Prince Renunciates?" "And he's not just a double to Neville. Ultimately, I think that he really has to serve as a double to Harry. Because you know..." "It's all about Harry." "Well. Penultimately. Ultimately, it's all about *us,* really. It's all about the reader. Fiction is a reflective surface. But to the extent that the reader is Harry, yeah. It's all about Harry. And as for Crouch Sr..." "Yes?" "Well, he stands for the *threat* to individuation, doesn't he? In large part, he represents the challenge that Harry needs to learn to overcome. So really, in some ways, he's the *Enemy* of Book Four. "And that's why I feel that while the text certainly does invite us to sympathize with Crouch there at the very end, while he's manfully trying to undo the damage that he has wrought, on another level I think that the text militates against sympathy with him. Because while Crouch the man is ultimately pitiable, and perhaps even in his own way admirable, Crouch's role in the text is to serve as the representative of the forces offering the temptation that Harry must learn to resist. Crouch offers the temptation of what is easy over what is right. It is *easy* to surrender your will to an authoritarian political leader. It is *easy* to allow yourself to be dominated by the desire to serve a charismatic master, or to impress a demanding employer, or to please a strong father figure. It is *easy* to let your parents protect and harbour and control you. It is *easy* to give way to the Imperius Curse. "But it's not right," Elkins concludes. "The text invites our sympathy for those who have to face those choices. But it doesn't generally invite too much sympathy for those who *offer* the easy choices, I don't think. It seems to me that in these books, the powers that actually offer the easy choices are...well, they're usually the powers of Evil." "Speak of the Devil," murmers Cindy. "Speak of the Devil. Both of the Bartemii Crouch are really pretty diabolical, when it comes right down to it. But somehow in the end I just can't help but sympathize far more with the son than with the father." "Yes," says Eileen, a bit crossly. "Well. Youth will be served, I suppose." "All too often with a side of fries," agrees Elkins grimly. "And that's the other reason. In the end, I can never seem to keep from reading Crouch Sr. as so closely allied to the Dementors. Oral aggression. The Devouring Parent. Destruction that masquerades as affection. Soul murder that calls itself a 'Kiss.' The *other* alternative answer to the Third Task Sphinx's riddle." She glances up at the CRAB CUSTARD banner and shudders helplessly. "Which brings us back to those bulging eyes," she says. "What *is* your deal with those eyes?" asks Cindy. "You said that you'd tell us about them," Eileen reminds her. "Did I?" Elkins sighs. "Well," she says. "I found it interesting when Eileen provided a .gif to a painting in her 'Crouch as Tragic Hero' post. Because Crouch Sr. has always reminded me of a painting, too. A completely different painting. A very specific painting. And it disturbs me. It really disturbs me a great deal." Eileen frowns. "What painting?" she asks. Elkins shakes her head from side to side. "Oh," she mutters, as if to herself. "Oh, but it's just coincidence, surely. It couldn't possibly have been intentional, could it? I doubt anyone *else* sees it there. It's just *me,* probably. It's just..." Down on the beach, Affective Fallacy raises its head and pricks up its ears. It shakes its mane, dodges the die-hard opponent of Redeemable!Draco who has been trying to catch it, and begins loping up the slope to the promenade. "Elkins," prompts Cindy. "What *painting?*" "The very second time I read GoF," Elkins says. "My very first re-reading, I just kept *flashing* on it. Every time that JKR did that thing with Crouch and his bulging eyes. And now I can't seem to rid myself of it. It's become completely intrinsic to the way that I read that plotline. It's become completely intrinsic to the way that I read the entire *novel,* for that matter. It's..." She blinks, then looks down at the promenade from high up on the back of her Affective Fallacy. "Oh." She frowns. "How did I get back up here?" "*Elkins.* What *painting?*" Elkins sighs. "Goya," she says. "Saturn Devouring His Son." ************* Elkins ********************************************************************** REFERENCES This post is continued from Part Six. It is primarily a response to messages #37476 (the Manifesto) and #45402 (Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero), but also cites or references message numbers 34232, 34496, 34519, 34579, 38368, 38398, 43326, 44258, 44636. Link to "Saturn Devouring His Son:" http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/goya/goya.saturn-son.jpg [1] This Lacan quotation (and footnote) comes to you courtesy of Amy Z., who once signed off with the following: > Amy, who has a deliciously grim feeling that this thing is > going to appear on the main list next week, grown to 48k and > with footnotes and references to Lacan, courtesy of certain > FAQers Who Must Not Be Named. Happy to oblige, my dear. I actually know virtually nothing about Lacan, but I am always happy to yank a quotation completely out of context and then run with it. -------- The Unforgivable Fallacies of the New Criticism: 'New Criticism' was a highly influential school of formalist literary criticism that flourished in the early to middle 20th century. The New Critics posited that the text ought be viewed as an autonomous entity, and that historical, biographical, or sociological factors should not be considered relevant to its interpretion. New Criticism encourages a very strong focus on the text itself and frowns upon all which diverges from that focus. The New Critics took particular issue with three violations of this philosophy. The "Three Unforgivable Fallacies" of the New Criticism are: THE INTENTIONAL FALLACY Confusing the author's relationship with the text, and particularly the dread "authorial intent," with the text itself. (Gave critics a lot of trouble at one time, the Intentional Fallacy. Some job for the reader, trying to sort out what the author had really written, and what the author only *meant* to have written...) THE AFFECTIVE FALLACY Confusing the reader's relationship with the text, and particularly the emotional effect that the text has on an individual reader, with the text itself. (You don't need the tools of literary analysis to wrest meaning from a text if you've got an Affective Fallacy.) THE HERESY OF PARAPHRASE The last and worst. Spoken of only in hushed whispers. Precisely what it sounds like. (And yes. Believe it or not, they really *did* call it 'the Heresy of Paraphrase.') Then, of course, New Criticism has been dead for very nearly as long as the Author herself has. ;-) For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Sun Dec 8 05:12:36 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 05:12:36 -0000 Subject: Meta-thinking=Metacogntion In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021207103707.012875d0@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47935 I think the work you are looking for is "metacognition." Metacognition: The process of considering and regulating one's own learning. Activities include assessing or reviewing one's current and previous knowledge, identifying gaps in that knowledge, planning gap- filling strategies, determining the relevance of new information, and potentially revising beliefs on the subject. Hope this helps...sorry if somebody already got around to it! Heidi R. From mdemeran at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 06:24:27 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 00:24:27 -0600 Subject: FILK: Please Write Rowling (Slight TBAY) Message-ID: <02fb01c29e82$766b3630$6501a8c0@MFD> No: HPFGUIDX 47936 Scene: Midnight in George's Tavern. A slightly bedraggled, very exhausted woman climbed on stage. Looking around at all of the discussions going on in the tavern, she tapped lightly on the microphone. A hush fell over the crowd as they took in the sight that met their eyes. Ponytails, an ink stain on her cheek, scrubs and tennis shoes were not typically seen so late in the evening around these parts. Rather, it looked like the person on stage had just rolled out of bed. She began to speak: "Hi! My name is Meg and I have a song for you all tonight. You see, my dad's favorite song is Goodnight Irene. I learned it when I was very small. The other day I came across a version by Jimmy Buffett. Maybe it was the lack of sleep. Maybe it was the impending final. I'm not sure. But I felt inspired. So sit back, relax, and enjoy. I call it 'Please write Rowling'". Rowling please write, Rowling please write Please write Rowling, Please write Rowling We will never see book 5 it seems Last summer we were promised Order of the Phoenix we were to get Now, it's two years later And we are all about to have a fit Rowling please write, Rowling please write Please write Rowling, Please write Rowling We'll never see book 5 it seems Some of us live in the England Some of us live in the States Some of us have gotten the notion In book five Harry goes on dates Rowling please write, Rowling please write Please write Rowling, Please write Rowling We'll never see book 5 it seems Last night as I sat rereading As I lay across my bed Last night I had this nightmare, oh god I dreamed Harry was dead Rowling please write, Rowling please write Please write Rowling, Please write Rowling We'll never see book 5 it seems Rowling please write, Rowling please write Please write Rowling, Please write Rowling We'll never see book 5 it seems Trailing off, she stepped back from the microphone and off the stage. Oblivious to the people around her who were still staring at her, she walked out of the bar and disappeared into the night Meg -- (who really should be studying for her finals instead of being inspired, but what can you do?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Dec 8 07:37:33 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:37:33 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DF3916D.27862.18926C@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 47937 On 7 Dec 2002 at 23:10, vaseemf vaseemf at yahoo.com wrote: > Although this rare occasion did occur during the Quidditch World Cup > I wouldn't be suprised if this was a first in World Cup history. Also > there were very special circumstances that produced this occasion. > Ireland had *much* stronger Chasers that allowed Ireland to get 16 > goals (I think) giving them 160 points. On top of that Bulgaria had a > strong enough seeker to stall Ireland's seeker from catching the > snitch for that long (using Wronski Feints). Also, I imagine that > Krum is one of the few seekers that have so little faith in his team > to get 2 goals in order for them to win. I don't see any reason to suppose the situation at the World Cup is at all rare. All of our experiences of Quidditch, until the World Cup, have been of children playing - school teams - it could be that school games are *much* lower scoring than adult games. Take cricket - a sport that may not be that familiar to Americans. My school had a decent cricket team playing in a decent schoolboy competition - and included players who are now international standard, and were playing at a state level whilst at school. Scores in a game for individual teams were often 120 runs - occasionally there were much higher scores, occasionally much lower. In international cricket, a score of 120 runs is pretty poor under most conditions. Scores of over 200 are routine, scores of 400 are not at all uncommon, on very rare occasions scores have gone over 1000 in an innings (I think the international record is 903). International teams scoring bears no resemblance to that of schoolboy teams, even though generally they are just as likely to be playing in a fairly evenly matched competition (and bear in mind that Cricket, like Quidditch, is a game that can take days to play - allowing time for massive scores) So it may be with Quidditch. In international competition, scores where the Snitch capture's 150 points, aren't that significant, may not be uncommon. We can't judge that likelihood by school level games. 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 Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 8 08:12:57 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 03:12:57 EST Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women Message-ID: <12c.1d0a3342.2b245909@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47938 porphyria at mindspring.com writes: > But on the other hand, there are some feminine (or yin) aspects to > Snape's depiction, aren't there? For one thing, I find it intriguing > that his craft is the one most often associated with (female) > witches; brewing in a cauldron, as opposed to the traditional > depiction of wizards with their really big staffs. In fact, he > disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic > obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with > I agree, and I've often said Snape's character could easily (and maybe should) be a woman. Actually, when I first read PS/SS I couldn't get over how similar, practically identical, his character was to Miss Hardbroom, the Potions Mistress from "The Worst Witch" by Jill Murphy. That was a very girl-positive book that I loved as a kid. Miss Hardbroom was just as tough and aggressive and not the slightest bit nurturing and all those other "unfeminine" things that you mentioned Snape is. And remember who they got to play her in the movie of "The Worst Witch"? The very sexy, sensuous, and very cool Diana Riggs, and it *worked*. For having another female author, I can't get over the way girls and women are represented in the Harry Potter books. Maybe JKR has self-esteem issues. But getting back to Snape... That was great idea about Snape personifying the cast-off female animus. I love that. I agree with what everyone has said on this topic so far, and I'll add another reason why he is so popular with the ladies. He's a challenge. He seems so unmoveable. Remember Nurse Chapel with Mr. Spock? Mm-hm, same deal. I've seen so many fanfics out there where a female HP character or original character is "the one" who breaks through Snape's hard exterior persona and to the tortured, misunderstood soul inside and wins his love. This makes "the one" very special and very important, to have done what no other person could do. It *is* romantic. This also relates to the concept of Snape as a "bad boy" (and the following applies to lucious Lucius lovers as well as Snape fans). Some women love a "bad boy" because of the romantic possibility of redeeming him, to be "the one" (again) who is so special that she can tame him, and turn him around, and redeem him with her love. That's also a very romantic concept (Isn't that part of why we loved Alan Rickman's evil Sheriff of Nottingham? See, it wasn't just that Kevin Costner was a crappy actor by comparison). Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From oppen at mycns.net Sun Dec 8 08:28:13 2002 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 02:28:13 -0600 Subject: Hermione the Blackmailer? Message-ID: <01d801c29e93$c1066c80$1f560043@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 47939 To be honest, I'm not sure that what Hermione is doing at the end of GOF to Rita Skeeter would qualify as blackmail. She isn't planning to make Skeeter _pay_ her for her silence; instead, she is imposing an informal, but real punishment on her for her malicious behavior at Hogwarts. Personally, I'd a lot rather she'd have turned Gred-and-Forge loose on the (female dog)...a few months of THEIR attentions would have Skeeter begging for mercy! *long, evil laugh* Of course, if Hermione _is_ Ever So Evil, as I wondered in an earlier post (admittedly, mostly to get you all good and stirred up) this could be yet another step in that long road to the bowels of El Diablo. Lying to teachers (PS/SS), stealing potion ingredients _and_ lying to teachers _and_ making a restricted potion (CS), and on and on it goes...eventually, she'll be out-evilling the Dark Lord himself! Hmmmm...if I had a Scrabble set, I'd start playing with her name and seeing what sort of scary Dark Lady pseudonym I could turn it into. Another thought...what if Hermione finds out that Skeeter's maybe not going to _write more articles,_ but _is_ going to press charges against her? Leave blackmail out of it; you've got kidnapping and false imprisonment at the very least. Of course, given the scrupulously fair justice system the lucky Wizard World enjoys, they'd _never_ find her guilty. *dripping sarcasm* Or even if they, by some miracle, _did_ find her guilty, they'd _never_ send her to Azkaban, would they? *even more sarcasm* I can just see Lucius Malfoy, cracking open a case of champers at Malfoy Manor upon hearing that Hermione's been tossed into Azkaban for life. Of course, _he'd_ never, ever arrange things to make sure she was found guilty, now would he? Putting Hermione on trial would be child's play, and I doubt that the Tough wizarding world has provisions for any such thing as a "juvie Azkaban." Skeeter would have her revenge, and that would go double, triple and with horseradish sauce on it if, as I suspect, Rita Skeeter herself is working for Voldemort. That way, the Bad Guys catch several Snitches with one Seeker: They hurt Harry Potter by taking away an extremely important emotional support They hurt the pro-Muggleborns by making them all look bad (the _Daily Prophet_ and Witch Weekly would have a field day) They make Dumbledore look bad by showing that he "can't control his students' criminal tendencies" Rita Skeeter, secret agent for You-Know-Who, is now seen as an unjustly mistreated innocent, and gains more access to the powerful for her stories. Unlike a lot of spies, she has every good (ostensible) reason to snoop around and dig up facts. From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 03:38:37 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:38:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard fertility (Re: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47940 Acire wrote: > All right, it's a well-known fact that wizards live longer than > Muggles. However, here's a question: wouldn't the fact that wizards > live longer than Muggles deter some wizards away from marrying a > Muggle? My thoughts on this question echo those already posted by others. I have a related question - what affect does the increased lifespan have on the ages at which witches and wizards start and cease to be fertile? It appears that in their youth, (up to their 30s - Sirius, Snape etc), wizards age similarly to Muggles. After that it seems to slow down until we have Minerva at 70 looking like a 45? year old (I was never any good at guessing ages...but then maybe she uses a hair-dye potion). If wizards have a longer middle and old age than muggles, does that mean that menopause (assuming it exists for witches) sets in later? Given the small size of the school compared to the (assumed) size of the wizard population, presumably witches do bear more children than their muggle counterparts, over a longer period? But wizard children can start their own families after a relatively short period. So why do we hear so little about great-great-grandparents? The extended family dynamics must be fiendishly complex... Chthonia From funkystargirl21 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 01:57:02 2002 From: funkystargirl21 at hotmail.com (Summer *) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:57:02 +0000 Subject: Question about Muggles knowing about Wizards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47941 Okay, as we have seen, Wizards try to keep themselves and their world very separate from the Muggle world because they don't really want Muggles to know about them, but what about Lilly Potter? Somewhere in SS Aunt P. says something along the lines of "Our parents where thrilled when Lilly got her letter, 'Oh look, we have a witch in the family'" (something along those lines, I don't have the book with me..) so apparently they weren't' that surprised. Wouldn't you normally be a little shocked if you found out your daughter was a witch? Especially if you had no idea that the WW exsisted? Please correct me if I am completely off on this matter, but it just seemed odd to me Summer _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From ezzie_mora at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 02:07:38 2002 From: ezzie_mora at yahoo.com (Ezzie Mora) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 18:07:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: <5D6E826C-0A3B-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20021208020738.15339.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47942 --- Porphyria wrote: > Snape appeals to some women because he is exactly > what a woman cannot be if she is to be recognized as > "feminine" in our society. I'm not sure I can completely follow this theory. There are other characters in the books that would arguably have the same appeal: Arthur Weasley who is loyal, noble, family oriented and in a powerful position at the Ministry. Albus Dumbledore who has acheived significantly in several areas including Potions, Alchemy, DADA, etc.. Whatever it is, it's beyond his career acheivments or his position at Hogwarts. I think the appeal to most women is Snape's unique range of character (intelligent, dark, brooding, ambitious, mysterious, tortured) that is appealing. If you're a Snape fan, ask yourself when the inclinations (obsession?) began. Was it after Book 1 when he tried to save Harry's life and constantly harassed him? Was it after Book 2 when he taunted Harry endlessly? Was it after Book 3 when you found out about the trick played on him by Sirius and when he tried to save the threesome? Or was it after Book 4 when we found out he was a spy and really a good guy and then began pondering as to what horrible things happened to him in his life? I doubt few of us considered him much until Book 3 - I know I didn't. Before that he was simply an overgrown grouchy adult. After Book 4 I began to compile all these things together, but his accomplishments meant nothing without the struggle it obviously took for him to get there. > So my argument states that Snape appeals to *some* > women who feel frustrated that society, their > families, or life in general obliges them into a > caretaker role when they privately feel that they > are better suited for more intellectual work. I certainly can't dispute that some women might feel this way. But we can't discount for the fact that a lot of women are attracted to him because he's obviously tortured and he is for all practical purposes a 'bad boy'. He's run with the devil himself (Voldemort) and seemingly pulled back to be a good guy. He's also intelligent, witty, loyal and mysterious. There is a part of many women that want the 'bad boy' with just a hint of danger and that seems to be what Snape has. Add on top of that all the implied intellectual aspects of his personality, and you can almost forget the fact that he has a taste for boring black clothing, not washing his hair or taking care of his teeth. It's sort of like women in our modern day who like biker guys who are bankers by day. Is this not what the appeal of Sirius Black is? Heck, he even rode a motorcycle! I think the Snape fascination has many levels though and your comments are all valid. His character is described, thus far, vaguely enough that you can make what you want of him. But I would note that most people who like Snape (that I've come across) are older. We younger Snape fans often have a darker side to our personalities and perhaps there is a common feeling of angst and torture there. A lot of Snape fiction seems to focus in on this - if we can use fanfiction as a means to judge the fandom's feelings towards him. =) -ezzie __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sholden at flash.net Sun Dec 8 01:07:40 2002 From: sholden at flash.net (SHolden) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 19:07:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP Couples in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <001501c29e56$35556480$78b45a42@falcon> No: HPFGUIDX 47943 Kate said: Well, whether or not you think halfway through the series is "early" is entirely a matter of opinion. She's revealed a number of key things so far. We know that Harry's dad was an animagus, as were his three best friends. We know that Snape was once a Deatheater but betrayed them at great risk to himself. We know that Voldemort was once a student at Hogwarts named Tom Riddle. Was it too early to reveal this important information? Does this mean it's automatically going to come untrue in future books? All the things she's revealed has been at the end of each of the books, where the truth really is. If you look at all the HP books as one big book, then she's revealing something obivious (R/Hr) that could be construed to be misdirection later on. Katie said: Finally, I think if she's going to develop a long lasting relationship between two of the main characters she darn well better start doing it early or we'll be left thinking "Huh? Harry's dating Neville? Where did THAT come from?" It takes time to establish things such as attraction and compatability in a manner that's both believable and still a subplot. Yes, it will be odd to see something like that, but there still is the H/Hr subtle foreshadowing. She's been building the trust between Harry & Hermione since SS/PS. Katie said: If she was going to turn evil in the next book, I'd want to see at least some sort of legitimate basis of manipulative or mean behavior in the previous ones. What really gets me is why did JKR have Lucius choose Ginny to be the one who gets Riddle's Diary? I'm sure that this has been thoroughly discussed, sorry if I'm going to be repeating it. The problem with a good or evil Ginny is that we don't have a developed enough character. She's been around since the CoS and has yet to be developed. Hopefully she'll get developed in OotP, we're pretty sure about it. Heck, we may even see the beginnings of a possible evil!Ginny in OotP. Susan XG said: J.K. Rowling ALSO said that there was "something" going on between Ron and Hermione, only that Ron doesn't realize it yet. JKR never said "between" in her interview about this. I don't recall the exact quote, but I do recall reading the archives about this particular topic, everyone was pretty ticked off that JKR never said "between." BTW, what was the exact quote about everyone is with the wrong person in GoF again? Sara From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 09:09:40 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 09:09:40 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <20021207185651.24648.qmail@web80311.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47944 All shipping is presumptive! Why on earth should JK Rowling want to parallel Draco and Snape, why not Draco and Lucius. He is portrayed IC as a spoilt Immature unplesant little boy, Why the rush to give him any credence at all? Shipping is a pretty pointless exercise - it can lead to so much ill feeling. Everybody has their own ideas and the fact is we have to wait and see. I am inclined to agree that all romances (never dating in English) will be very light. As for Cho - a superior stalking horse and not a main character IMO unlike Snape whim I believe has a big part to play. Rgds Diane > How do you know that JKR isn't trying to show > parallels between Snape and Draco, as she's clearly > showing parallels between Harry and James, in tandem? > I mean, even Dumbledore compares the animus between > Harry and Draco with the animus between James and > Snape - and we *know* from Book 3 that Snape tried to > warn James that there was a traitor close to him - of > course, he got it wrong as to who the traitor was, but > he did try. > > Why are you so quick to dismiss any parallels between > Snape and Draco when we *know* from the books that at > least Sirius (and likely his other friends (i.e. > James) too) thought that teenaged Severus was a > Dark-Arts practicing git? They didn't think any better > of him than Harry and his friends think of Draco, and > Snape turned out (at least from what we've seen in > canon so far) to be On The Side of Good. > > Why is it impossible to think that she might be > showing something similar with Draco? > > > heidi From porphyria at mindspring.com Sun Dec 8 10:19:02 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 05:19:02 -0500 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women Message-ID: <79087FD1-0A96-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47945 I wrote: > > Snape appeals to some women because he is exactly > > what a woman cannot be if she is to be recognized as > > "feminine" in our society. Ezzie replied: > I'm not sure I can completely follow this theory. > There are other characters in the books that would > arguably have the same appeal: Arthur Weasley who is > loyal, noble, family oriented and in a powerful > position at the Ministry. Albus Dumbledore who has > acheived significantly in several areas including > Potions, Alchemy, DADA, etc.. Whatever it is, it's > beyond his career acheivments or his position at > Hogwarts. I'm afraid I don't feel that either Arthur or Dumbledore fit my theory at all. These are both nice guys, they are compassionate, caring, considerate, magnanimous, etc. I wasn't trying to say that Snape was appealing merely due to his professional success -- quite the opposite, more due to his professional frustration. I was talking more in terms of personality conflicts than professional success: Snape appeals to some women because he's *not suited for his job,* because it conflicts with his personality. Arthur and Dumbledore love their jobs, even if it's implied that they could both get more ambitious positions. And I certainly wasn't implying that women can't achieve professional success in the real world (I hope that was obvious); only that frustration with children might be a problematic point for some women. > I think the appeal to most women is Snape's unique > range of character (intelligent, dark, brooding, > ambitious, mysterious, tortured) that is appealing. This also is true, I'm sure. I'm just asking why "intelligent, dark, brooding, ambitious, mysterious, tortured" would be appealing. There are some people who don't understand or agree, as oddly as that sounds to a Snape fan. :-) > If you're a Snape fan, ask yourself when the > inclinations (obsession?) began. For me the question is not when it began, but why it persists. There are a lot of dark, intelligent, brooding characters in literature. Not all appeal to me (I never liked Heathcliff, for instance). So I think that Snape appeals because he has this really wide variety of characteristics, not just because he's the mysterious bad boy, but also because he's got all these other (relatively) unique things. He's trapped in a day job he hates, for instance, apart from his ambivalent relationship with the Evil Dark Lord. I mean, that's almost *funny.* > I doubt few of us considered him much until Book 3 - I > know I didn't. Before that he was simply an overgrown > grouchy adult. After Book 4 I began to compile all > these things together, but his accomplishments meant > nothing without the struggle it obviously took for him > to get there. See, I liked him in Book 2, and others, like Mel, liked him by Book 1. But I agree that by Book 4 it's the combination of qualities that clinches it. I also agree that: > But I would note that most > people who like Snape (that I've come across) are > older. We younger Snape fans often have a darker side > to our personalities and perhaps there is a common > feeling of angst and torture there. Yes, I certainly think you have to have a healthy sense of regret to really identify with Snape, and this usually comes with age and life experience. > A lot of Snape > fiction seems to focus in on this - if we can use > fanfiction as a means to judge the fandom's feelings > towards him. =) Certainly, and I was basing my argument on fanfiction too as well as private conversations. But again, I was just offering one among many answers to the question. All are welcome. ~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mb2910 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 12:00:19 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:00:19 -0000 Subject: Muggles knowing about WW, Couples in Potterverse (SHIP), Hermione and Polyjuice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47946 1. Question about Muggles knowing about Wizards Summer: >Okay, as we have seen, Wizards try to keep themselves and their >world very separate from the Muggle world because they don't really >want Muggles to know about them, but what about Lilly Potter? >Somewhere in SS Aunt P. says something along the lines of "Our >parents where thrilled when Lilly got her letter, 'Oh look, we have >a witch in the family'" (something along those lines, I don't have >the book with me..) so apparently they weren't' that surprised. >Wouldn't you normally be a little shocked if you found out your >daughter was a witch? Especially if you had no idea that the WW >exsisted? >Please correct me if I am completely off on this matter, but it just >seemed odd to me Me: I think that Lilly's parents were open minded and accepted people's diferences. We don't know much about Harry's grandparents, but I think that Petunia's resentment of them is the result of her parents reacting "all is normal and cool and nice in our family", when she wasn't as accepting of the situation. As for their lack of surprise, it could be that they were aware of the WW, perhaps had other family members who were also wizards. But frankly, we dn't know enough about Petunia's and Lily's parents to speculate on their behavior, because what we *do* know about them is those few remarks of Petunia's (and we all know how biased *she* is towards the WW, so she might be exaggerating, or at least not being very accurate), and of course we see them as reflections when Harry sees them in the Mirror of Erised, but that also is not enough to go by. Here's a question: In the Mirror of Erised, Harry's family is seen as they really were or as Harry imagines them to be? *** 2. Re: Couples in the Potterverse Theresnothingtoit: >Ron: Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to >be together. But the more I look at it the more and more cliche it >looks. Yes they would make an adoreable couple, yes it is quite >clear that Ron fancys the pants off Hermione but IIRC JKR say that >each of the main characters would fall for Mr/Miss Wrong. I believe >that Hermione is Rons Miss Wrong. I think it would be better if he >ended up with someone else, someone already foreshadowed in the >books. What was that? Padma you say? Goodness no, Rons going to >swallow his pride, grow up and ask Eliose Midgen to go on a date. Me: If each of the main characters are falling for Mr/Miss Wrong, then it could also be said that Ron's Miss Wrong is Fleur. I don't think it would be terribly cliched if Ron ended up with Hermione. Theresnothingtoit: >Harry: Will not date Ginny - no! I can't stand this coupling. If >you like it then fair enough but I have different plans for Ginny. >Anyway I don't think Harry will end up with anyone, perhaps Hermione >for a while, just during her phase where she can't believe that Ron >doesn't fancy her anymore. But I have different plans for Hermione >aswell. Anyway Harry is going to die before any serious >relationship developes. Me: I cannot stand Harry/Ginny either. Now *that* is oh-so-very cliched. Harry, hopefully, will end up either with Hermione or with no one, I don't think that Cho is "right" for him. Besides, what is her reaction to Cedric's death? How will it affect her? (in fanfiction, I'm an enthusiastic H/D shipper, but that has no evidence in Canon, or at least no evidence as evident as R/H *wibble*) Theresnothingtoit: >Ginny: Has to end up with Neville. No questions asked this would >be the cutest couple in the Potterverse and would make for some >excellent scenes between Neville and the Weasly clan as they all >became far too over protective of their little sister. Me: They would be cute, wouldn't they? But what about Ginny/Seamus? Theresnothingtoit: >Snape and Petunia: OK, so I am pritty sure he was in love with her >sister but I can see the dark haired Snape fall for this >blonde...er...bombshell? Once she discovers she's magical ofcourse. Me: Petunia? Having a *willing* relation with a wizard? That would be like asking Lucius to date a Muggle ;-) I don't see that happening, but, who knows, I didn't see Prof. Quirrel as being the Bad Guy in PS/SS, andI turned out to be wrong :). Theresnothingtoit: >Ernie MacMillan and Hannah Abbot: Cannon? They were swopping >chocolate frog cards in the Three Broomsticks in GoF. A sure sign >of love if ever I saw one. Me: Haven't thought about them in depth. Theresnothingtoit: >Hermione: Hmm. This one was tricky as I had already paired off >Ron. But I think there could come a time when Ron bares his soul to >her, she lets him down gently, he takes a while to get over her but >when he does she discoveres that she really did like his >affections. >So I think she might end up with Draco, once she gets over Ron, if >and only if he turns to the light side. If not then...how >about...er...Studmuffin!Dudley. What! I hear you scream. >Studmuffin!Dudley, is this girl mad! Well all I am saying is Harry >hasn't seen his cousin in 10 months, you can loose alot of weight in >10 months - and I didn't say that Studmuffins had to have a >perticularly nice personality. Me: I don't see Dudley losing too much weight. Dieting isn't something that is easily done, and if you don't have support from you family, or those that you live with, it can be quite challenging. And I think that if Dinky Duddydums didn't have any bad feelings towards the WW, after the pig's tail and the ton-tongue-toffee incidents, he would probably be wary of getting near any wizard or witch in the future. *** 3. Why Hermione wanted to make the Polyjuice Was:Hermione and the Polyjuice Potion Susanne: >Almost as if it was a personal thing, wanting to prove she can, even >though it's supposed to be a most complicated brew. >*snip* >She wanted to make this potion, no matter what, and it showed a side >of her that's almost Slytherin. *Sarah =): >I don't think that the brewing of the Polyjuice Potion had anything >to do with Hermione "showing off!" I think that it was purely out of >terror; *snip* Me: Hi Sarah :). It could be both, plus a desire to find out what's going on. Wow, this turned out to be quite lengthy *g* I guess that's what heppens when I have Free Time... :) Meira. From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 14:56:10 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 06:56:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione the Blackmailer? In-Reply-To: <01d801c29e93$c1066c80$1f560043@hppav> Message-ID: <20021208145610.81005.qmail@web40502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47947 Eric Oppen wrote: Another thought...what if Hermione finds out that Skeeter's maybe not going to _write more articles,_ but _is_ going to press charges against her? Leave blackmail out of it; you've got kidnapping and false imprisonment at the very least. Of course, given the scrupulously fair justice system the lucky Wizard World enjoys, they'd _never_ find her guilty. *dripping sarcasm* Or even if they, by some miracle, _did_ find her guilty, they'd _never_ send her to Azkaban, would they? *even more Me: I think they'd have a job proving that Hermione "imprisoned" Rita Skeeter. Scenario: Hermione just lets Rita go at platform 9 3/4 upon arrival and throws away the jar where she kept her. There's absolutely no evidence against Hr. Besides, if Rita says anything about Hr capturing her, she'd have to say that she's an unregistered animagus, and she doesn't want to do that. Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 15:26:08 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 07:26:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voldemort - Jafar? Message-ID: <20021208152608.10335.qmail@web40505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47948 OK, this is a bit stupid, but here goes. In GoF Voldemort is described as tall, thin, with abnormally long fingers, white skin, with slits for nostrils and red eyes. Doesn't that kind of resemble Jafar in "Aladdin?" I think that the only 2 differences are that Jafar does not have red eyes but instead has a really big nose. This bothers me for this reason: Jafar is a classic, even fairy-tale villain, he doesn't have *any* positive traits (well, he is rather smart, but he's still very unappealing). JKR doesn't strike me as the type of writer who would have such one-sided characters. So why the resemblance? Maybe it's just an accident? OTOH, in spite of these similarities, I never imagined LV looking like Jafar, and I still don't. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 16:14:09 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 08:14:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not One-sided (was: Voldemort - Jafar?) In-Reply-To: <20021208152608.10335.qmail@web40505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021208161409.22790.qmail@web13002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47949 Maria Kirilenko wrote: In GoF Voldemort is described as tall, thin, with abnormally long fingers, white skin, with slits for nostrils and red eyes. Doesn't that kind of resemble Jafar in "Aladdin?" I think that the only 2 differences are that Jafar does not have red eyes but instead has a really big nose. This bothers me for this reason: Jafar is a classic, even fairy-tale villain, he doesn't have *any* positive traits (well, he is rather smart, but he's still very unappealing). JKR doesn't strike me as the type of writer who would have such one-sided characters. So why the resemblance? Maybe it's just an accident? Me: I think it's a coincidence. Both JKR and the artist who designed Jafar seem to think this general appearance is somewhat sinister and forboding. As you note, they aren't identical in every respect. As to the part about the character being one-sided, Voldemort is actually the one villain in the series (the Malfoys being especially notable for this) who is NOT one sided. While we don't know everything about his motivation for trying to kill Harry (whether it was the Heir of Gryffindor thing, a prophecy or whatever) we do have some insight into his life before he became Voldemort. In CoS we get a picture of a boy relegated to living in an orphanage, a boy who found out he was a wizard, that he could talk to snakes, and that he was the descendant of one of the founders of Hogwarts, the founder who hated Muggles (like his father) and Muggle-borns. We find out that he was in an orphanage not because he was actually an orphan, but because his father walked out on his mother upon finding out she was a witch. We also learn, early in GoF, that he killed his own father and paternal grandparents, which probably gave him a taste for first-hand murder (as opposed to his murder of Myrtle, which was not technicaly by his hand, although he was to blame for setting the basilisk loose). This actually gives us a pretty good portrait of Tom Riddle as a young man. We see that as early as sixteen he was ruthless enough to kill (perhaps because he thought it was his legacy, as the Heir of Slytherin?) and to frame others (Hagrid). We see that he was also clever enough to create that diary, that he was a Head Boy, and that he had the ability to see the Big Picture and knew that "Tom Riddle" would not inspire legions of followers, whereas "Lord Voldemort" just might. Frankly, I wish the motivation of those who follow him (Barty Crouch, Jr., the Malfoys, the Lestranges) was as clear as the motivation of Voldemort himself. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From daniel.brent at cwctv.net Sun Dec 8 15:53:57 2002 From: daniel.brent at cwctv.net (evenflow200214 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:53:57 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/DE's/Riddle,Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47950 Voldemort mentions in GoF in the cemetery scene that Harry has an ancient protection invoked when Harry is with the Dursley's... How does Voldemort know about this protection? He was Vapormort until GoF How are DE's selected? Do they have to hate Muggles/Muggle Borns? Crouch doesn't seem to...Wormtail was friends with Lily... Doesn't this bother Voldemort, it being his ambition to rid the world of Muggles and Muggle borns? Does Hagrid know who Riddle became? He says he knows that Voldemort went to Hogwarts "years and years ago"... Has he been told that Tom Riddle and Voldemort are actually one and the same? And how would he react to Voldemort now? Knowing that he was once Tom Riddle? And were they friends at Hogwarts until the Myrtle incident? Tom seems to be the only one who calls Hagrid, "Ruebus". Does Hagrid know Tom was responsible for his expulsion? And does he not call himself Ruebus as a symbol of the lost trust he had with Tom? --Daniel From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 8 17:11:17 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:11:17 -0000 Subject: Crouch in 9 parts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47951 If I hadn't read Elkins's book on the Crouch family, I might have gone to bed last night (it's now 8.30 in the morning my time). I can rave vaguely about the writing, so dramatic, the range of knowledge shown, the passion ... but it is VERY hard to actually comment on, despite having done a good bit of re-reading while reading it.... Is it Livius Junius Brutus (in post 2 of 9) or Lucius Junius Brutus (in post 3 of 9)? << an acronym like 'Classy, Rich, Ambitious, Bold: Crouch's Unsung Sexiness Tempts All Raunchy Damsels.' I mean, that's really rather *racy,* don't you think?" >> The problem is that word "raunchy". Would the name be better if it were changed to "randy"? No? How about "reasonable"? << Reader identification based on strong *autobiographical congruence.* >> I know it's very impolite to make personal comments, but ... *you* have shown no signs of being a dedicate servant of an Evil Overlord. << You don't really think that the politicians *themselves* believe that when they say it, do you? They don't. They know full well that those measures are ineffective. >> This is a forbidden RL not HP comment: Actually, I *do* believe that some few of the politicians themselves *do* believe it. << Who really never once allowed love -- *any* of the four loves -- to dictate his actions? >> I can NEVER remember what the four loves are, but isn't Junior's devotion to Voldemort (which is dictating his actions once he escapes his father's Imperius) some kind of love? << "No, I mean its source *within* the canon. Where does this idea that Crouch only saved his son to honor his wife's dying request come from in the first place? Where does it originate? How do we know that it really happened that way?" >> In my opinion, which has a very poor track record: it has been surprised by EVERY plot twist except Lupin being a werewolf (that was pretty obvious from first seeing that name on his luggage!) -- JKR isn't going to re-visit the Crouches, and therefore is not going to confirm or deny what was said under Veritaserum, but I think she intended that what was said under Snape's strongest Veritaserum to be truth. Of course, some people are convinced that Junior will re-appear, getting his soul back by using some variant of Voldemort's spell for getting his body back because that spell uses "bone of the father" and JKR so carefully made sure that bone of Senior is available -- a plot device reason for transfiguring him into a bone and hiding it that has *nothing* to do with wizarding opinion of what is to be done with dead bodies ... altho' Ebony's fanfic hypothesizes that the necessity for proper, prompt disposal of wizarding corpses is that they are magic and sprout monsters (I don't remember the details) otherwise. But while I was reading this part of your discourse, I was heard to clearly say: "Oh, shit" because I thought you were about to prove that Mrs. Crouch had NOT gone to her horrible death of her own will, but rather her husband had bullied her into it with remarks like "It's not such a big sacrifice for you; you're already dying" and "What kind of mother could let her child suffer like that?" << 'Just so you know, boy, I would have happily left you to rot in Azkaban, if only your sainted mother hadn't forced my hand with that blasted dying request of hers.' >> I don't think that's so implausible, at least maybe phrased differently. My understanding of parents is that they are people who get exasperated at their children and rant about how the children should be *grateful* for everything the parents are doing for them, especially considering that the parents are not doing it because of there being anything so great about the child, but merely because of their own sense of social reasonsibility.... "Goddamn inconvenient death-eating brat, *could* you *top *trying* to get me thrown in Azkaban just for taking you out of there? I knew it was a bloody damn bad idea, I didn't want to do it, said you'd made your own bed and should lie in it, but your silly sentimental mother insisted ... " << He has become *Nemesis.*" >> well .... Mad-Eye Moody's given name is Alastor. NOT Alaister or Allister as some fans have it, and NOT named after Shelley(?)'s poem of "Alastor, the Spirit of Solitude", but named after the same original Greek source as the poem was: my year 2000 searches on mythology websites all found that an "alastor" is a spirit of vengeance, a male nemesis. 9.11AM From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 17:30:58 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:30:58 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: <79087FD1-0A96-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47952 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria wrote: > > But I would note that most > > people who like Snape (that I've come across) are > > older. We younger Snape fans often have a darker side > > to our personalities and perhaps there is a common > > feeling of angst and torture there. > > Yes, I certainly think you have to have a healthy sense of regret to > really identify with Snape, and this usually comes with age and life > experience. Oh, I don't know about that. What I like about Snape is his devotion to duty. He doesn't LIKE what he has to do... but he has to do it. Kind of like me when I know my family's going to drop by for a visit and I know I hafta get the place cleaned up or I'll hear about it. Only much more so. Snape's situation ranges from pathos to bathos - while for the most part I find him a sympathetic character, sometimes his misery is ... *duck!* ... funny. He's like the Daffy Duck of the wizarding world - he just CAN'T win. Poor Snape (heehee!). CK From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Dec 8 17:34:28 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 11:34:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Muggles knowing about Wizards References: Message-ID: <3DF382A4.B5D479BC@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47953 Summer * wrote: > > Okay, as we have seen, Wizards try to keep themselves and their world > very > separate from the Muggle world because they don't really want Muggles > to > know about them, but what about Lilly Potter? Somewhere in SS Aunt P. > says > something along the lines of "Our parents where thrilled when Lilly > got her > letter, 'Oh look, we have a witch in the family'" (something along > those > lines, I don't have the book with me..) so apparently they weren't' > that > surprised. Wouldn't you normally be a little shocked if you found out > your > daughter was a witch? Especially if you had no idea that the WW > exsisted? > Please correct me if I am completely off on this matter, but it just > seemed > odd to me > > Summer > Its very possible that many of those muggles who have a wizard or witch in their family do know about the WW. Its not like they would go tell anyone, noone would believe them anyways. Possible that Lilly's grandparents were squibs or something and it skipped a few generations? You always hear about someone who claims their great grandmother had 'the gift' or something like that. Maybe Lilly's parents were 'SF/Fantasy fans' and were weird by muggle standards anyways? Not ALL muggles fear magic... Some, like Wiccans and other pagans pretend to have real magic, poor things. They even claim to talk to gods and goddesses on a first name basis. ;) Its possible that Lilly didn't have 'mundane' parents...too bad her sister turned out to be a mundane (ie. a 'normal' person, by society's standards) Jazmyn From Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 8 17:55:34 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:55:34 EST Subject: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Message-ID: <1a2.d14501a.2b24e196@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47954 Acire wrote: > All right, it's a well-known fact that wizards live longer than > Muggles. However, here's a question: wouldn't the fact that wizards > live longer than Muggles deter some wizards away from marrying a > Muggle? Me: It would be a valid objection. Of course, true love, blah, blah, and all that stuff that everyone else said--I agree. But two other possibilities: 1.) We don't know the average age difference in wizard-muggle marriages. Maybe many wizards are much older than the muggles they marry. We know that a wizard can look much younger than their actual age, so the couple wouldn't appear to be that different in age. OR, 2.) There may be some spells, a potions, or some elements (foods? vitamins?) in the WW that increases a muggle's lifespan just a bit. It doesn't have to be the Elixir of Life. Maybe they have better treatments for heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, etc. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 8 18:17:04 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:17:04 EST Subject: Hagrid, Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47955 In a message dated 08/12/2002 12:07:55 Eastern Standard Time, daniel.brent at cwctv.net writes: Daniel wonders about Hagrid and Riddle: > were they friends at Hogwarts until the Myrtle incident? Tom seems to be > the only one who calls Hagrid, "Ruebus". Does Hagrid know Tom was > responsible for his expulsion? And does he not call himself Ruebus as > a symbol of the lost trust he had with Tom? If the events Harry witnessed through the diary really happened, then Hagrid undoubtedly knows Riddle was responsible for his expulsion. I think they might have been friends, at least in Hagrid's eyes. Going back to Riddle's statement that he's always been able to charm the people he needed...it's probable that Riddle befriended Hagrid as a means to an end. I can imagine Riddle sympathizing with Hagrid about both of them being orphans, about the parents who so unjustly abandoned them at an early age (Hagid's mother and Riddle's father), Riddle winning Hagrid's trust, exchanging secrets, Hagrid telling Riddle about Aragog. That brainless oaf, Hagrid, is secretly keeping a monster in the castle. This is information Riddle can use. If something goes wrong, he can just blame it all Hagrid and his monster and get off clean. And that's exactly what happens. I like the connection you made between Tom Riddle calling Hagrid by his first name, and the fact that Hagrid asks everyone to call him Hagrid now, not Rubeus. That could have something to do with it. Whenever someone calls Hagrid familiarly, Rubeus, some part of him reacts with mistrust because of Tom Riddle, who may have been Hagrid's first and only friend, betraying him. Very good idea. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 8 18:28:35 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:28:35 -0000 Subject: Erised/spyLudo/goodDraco/skrewtHagrid/VaporMort/1styrSnape/plumbing/loveLily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47956 Is "metalanguage" made of metal? Pippin wrote: << The idea was, I think, to lure Voldemort on with the fair puzzles, and get him to look in the Mirror. In the event he was too shrewd to do so, but if he had looked, he would have seen himself experiencing immortality, and so been caught forever. >> He might have seen himself torturing and dismembering Dumbledore. I always get the feeling that Voldemort's quest for immortality was more a means than an end... Marlys wrote: << [and just how was Ludo privy to anything Voldemort needed to know? I doubt beater strategies were high on his list] >> Bagman was such a popular celebrity, as we saw in the Pensieve, that important, rich, socially prominent people would go out of their way to try to make friends with him. Thus he could get invited to dinner parties and stuff. Then some of the VIPs who really *were* important, or any high-ranking in important departments, could try to impress him with their importance by dropping a little bit of inside information, especially if they'd had a drop too much, and then he encouraged them with rapt, admiring attention and flattering questions. I was thinking that Bagman must have been kind of a "walk-in" to Rookwood, as why would a spymaster go out of his way to recruit a star athlete, when any very rich wizard or very eautiful witch could do the job I've just suggested that Bagman did... then I vaguely remembered something, which led me to As Jeeves: "Who was that baseball player who was a spy for the Americans in World War II?" (and *I* am NOT smart enough to format that as a Google query!) and, mixed in with the ads for spy equipment stores and Arab American baseball players (I am always amused by the utter WRONGness of some of Jeeves's suggestions), was http://travel.boston.com/places/getaways/south/080402_dc_spy_museum.ht ml which contains "Moe Berg is remembered partly as a baseball player and partly as a spy; he slipped into occupied Norway during the war and his "home movies," taken during a baseball tour of Japan, were used to plan World War II bombing raids." I poked around some more, finding http://www.cia.gov/cia/ciakids/history/mo.html where I learned that Bagman was NO Moe Berg .. Berg spoke several languages when he graduated from university before he was signed to Brooklyn Dodgers, and went to law school and passed the bar while playing with the White Sox, and was called "the brainiest player in baseball". So on the one hand, I don't know if there is any value to Moe Berg as an analogy for an athlete/spy, but on the other hand, Bagman WOULD have been travelling with his team like Berg... Anyway, no one would suspect an idiot like Bagman the way some people would suspect a rich man or beautiful woman who asked a lot of questions about classified material. Carol Bainbridge wrote: << He was accused of *passing* information to Voldemort's supporters, but he says he thought he was *collecting* information for "our side." Now how can you mistake the direction information is flowing? >> I don't have a problem with that. *If* Bagman was just stupid, then he knew he was passing information to Rookwood, but he thought Rookwood was one of the good guys, so he thought he was passing TO the good guys. He presumably asked the questions Rookwood suggested, of the people whom Rookwood suggested. Oryomai wrote: << Will the good guys take/believe a Good!Draco? >> Dumbledore would. He's a big believer in giving people second chances. I think Snape would... If Snape believe Draco to be irredeemably evil (despite not yet having done anything as bad as some of what Snape presumably had to do as a Death Eater), it would be for some other reason than Draco picking on Harry & Co. Shane wrote: << We don't actually ever see Hagrid get aggressive, but the *potential* for ferocious violence is very much there. >> We do. GoF, "The Madness of Mr. Crouch": "Karkaroff spat onto the ground at Dumbledore's feet. In one swift movement, Hagrid seized the front of Karkaroff's furs, lifted him into the air, and slammed him against a nearby tree." I only remembered this because it was discussed recently. Rachel wrote: << I've always been curious just what Blast-Ended Skrewts are a cross OF, >> Manticore and Fire Crab. Someone already said WHERE this is found in canon: in Rita Skeeter's article against Hagrid. Melody wrote: << Why Voldemort once he left Quirrell ran, well glided, back to Albania if he is not able to be killed, injured, captured... whatever? >> Someone proposed a theory that VaporMort is magnetically attracted to one spot in Albania, so that whenever he loses his body he is pulled there, and he can't leave without some kind of body. When he left with Quirrel, before he was living permanently on the back of Quirrel's head, maybe he possessed Quirrel just briefly, just long enough to leave his hiding place... I like that theory, even tho' I haven't exactly worked out how he left with Quirrel, because I added an epicycle to it: the reason that one particular place pulls him like that is because that is the place where he did some part, maybe the final successful part, of his immortality spell. Audra wrote: << How else would someone know that he knew more curses than a seventh year unless Snape told them? >> Maybe the whole school knew because Snape was a sensation at duelling, astonishing all spectators by how many curses he knew and how quickly he cast them.... Maybe the word got out more slowly, through the teachers, because Snape always used different curses as his examples in all the homework essays he wrote in all his classes... "whirlillusory" wrote: << If the founders of Hogwarts lived 1000 years ago, that puts their time a little before indoor plumbing! >> I always say, in the Potterverse, the wizarding folk had indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water and flush toilets ever since Atlantis. All the various Muggles who 'invented' indoor plumbing (Minoans, Romans, 18th century, etc) were really trying to copy what they had seen when a guest in a wizarding home. Also, the wizarding folk had elaborate castles ever since Atlantis, so it doesn't matter that Muggle 'castles' were IIRC wooden huts surrounded by a muddy ditch and a picket fence at the time of the Founders. I personally don't believe in Atlantis or primordial matriarchies, but I also don't believe in flying carpets or House Elves. A large part of the gimmick of the Potterverse is that many things which are familiar folklore or fantasy motifs which every reader *knows* aren't real, *are* real (altho' often garbled) in the Potterverse. So I think I'm tremendously amusing to add Atlantis and primordial matriarchies to the list of things that Muggles are too stupid to believe in. Chthonia wrote: << Only thing I can think of is that the magic invoked by his mother's death allowed him to psychologically survive the Dursleys (even though Harry didn't know about that consciously, the Dementors in PoA showed that he had deeply buried memories of it), as well as physically surviving Voldemort. >> Yes! I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring adult said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious abuse... I kind of think Lily used her last magic to put this image in his head intentionally, instead of using her last magic in one last attempt to escape Voldemort, except I don't know why she would do that if she really believed that he would be dead seconds after she was. When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and still has free will. In addition, so far we've always seen Harry wondering and trying to find out about his father, and not about his mother. Some say that's a plot device because JKR is saving some big surprise about Lily, and some say it's normal because Harry is 11 to 14 so far, puberty and adolescence, and much more concerned about a male image to identify with. But *I* say that he doesn't search so much for Lily because, unknown to himself, he already has her with him. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 8 18:36:09 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:36:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemort/DE's/Riddle,Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47957 Daniel Brent wrote: << How does Voldemort know about this protection? He was Vapormort until GoF >> One presumes that either Quirrel or Wormtail told him. Quirrel could have known if he had learned about it from Dumbledore, and Wormtail could have known if he overheard the adult Weasleys talking about it. << Doesn't this bother Voldemort, it being his ambition to rid the world of Muggles and Muggle borns? >> I doubt it -- I get the impression that Voldemort hates his purebloods as much as he hates Muggles. From Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 8 19:14:01 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:14:01 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort - Jafar? Message-ID: <16b.1835c65e.2b24f3f9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47958 maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com writes: > In GoF Voldemort is described as tall, thin, with abnormally long fingers, > white skin, with slits for nostrils and red eyes. Doesn't that kind of > resemble Jafar in "Aladdin?" I think that the only 2 differences are that > Jafar does not have red eyes but instead has a really big nose. > > This bothers me for this reason: Jafar is a classic, even fairy-tale > villain, he doesn't have *any* positive traits (well, he is rather smart, > but he's still very unappealing). JKR doesn't strike me as the type of > writer who would have such one-sided characters. So why the resemblance? > Maybe it's just an accident? > Me: Whoa, hold on there, Steely Dan. "Unappealing" is a matter of opinion. I *loved* Jafar. "The royal vizier! Why, that would be...me!" Interestingly, I've never compared Jafar with Voldemort before, but I've seen a lot of fan art where *Snape* is depicted looking a *lot* like Jafar. I've even seen him with Jafar's beard many times. And what about Jafar's *voice*? Definitely soft and silky. However, I don't think JKR had Jafar in mind when she wrote her characters. I believe the similarities between Jafar and Snape, Jafar and Lucius (big snake-headed staff, remember?), and Jafar and Voldemort are due to snake imagery being used so often to convey cold, calculating, devious, mysterious, manipulative, sinister, murderous, evil, etc, which is a Judeo-Christian view going all the way back to Satan being depicted as a serpent in Genesis. On a final note, Jafar and Voldemort both ought to take a lesson from "If I Am Ever And Evil Overlord." Turning into a snake never works. ;) Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From melclaros at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 19:21:31 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:21:31 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: <79087FD1-0A96-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria wrote: snipping/pasting here > > For me the question is not when it began, but why it persists. There are a > lot of dark, intelligent, brooding characters in literature. Not all > appeal to me (I never liked Heathcliff, for instance). So I think that > Snape appeals because he has this really wide variety of characteristics, > not just because he's the mysterious bad boy, but also because he's got > all these other (relatively) unique things. He's trapped in a day job he > hates, for instance, apart from his ambivalent relationship with the Evil > Dark Lord. I mean, that's almost *funny.* Heathcliff is a profoundly annoying character who I've always despised. The reason for that is because he started out "that way" and never changed. Snape, on the other hand has developed layer upon layer of interesting characteristics, traits and histories to pick away at. No, not all of them are very nice. In fact most of them are pretty awful. But that only adds to the interest. Now, to be fair, he has had 4 books so far in which to develop whereas Heathcliff had only the one--but I wouldn't have read Heathcliff's continuing adventures anyway so... > > > I doubt few of us considered him much until Book 3 - I > > know I didn't. Before that he was simply an overgrown > > grouchy adult. After Book 4 I began to compile all > > these things together, but his accomplishments meant > > nothing without the struggle it obviously took for him > > to get there. > > See, I liked him in Book 2, and others, like Mel, liked him by Book 1. But > I agree that by Book 4 it's the combination of qualities that clinches it. > I also agree that: > > > But I would note that most > > people who like Snape (that I've come across) are > > older. We younger Snape fans often have a darker side > > to our personalities and perhaps there is a common > > feeling of angst and torture there. > > Yes, I certainly think you have to have a healthy sense of regret to > really identify with Snape, and this usually comes with age and life > experience. Book one. Absolutely. Seduced by the Potions Speech (you know those scenes in the Indiana Jones movies where all the girls in his archeology classes...never mind) and cemented by the LOGIC test at the end. The sheer brilliance of his mind stood out there, so much so that JKR felt it necessary to point out that most wizards would never be able to get past that test. There is nothing sexier than a brilliant mind. Add the silky, dark chocolate voice and sweeping black robes as icing on the cake and 'Whoops, there goes Mel!' Watching the character develop and, even in some aspects 'devolve' over the course of the next books is what keeps the attraction fresh. I've said before and I'll say again that to my reading Severus Snape is the single most thought out, complex and detailed character in the entire HP series. JK's poured out a lot of time and energy into this character, there has to be something more behind it than a big mean old grouch. I have to agree also with the ability to really identify and appreciate with Snape coming with age and experience, I am "of an age" with the character (oh go look it up yourself!). I know what's going on in the head of a person at that point in his/her life. It's generally a time of rethinking one's life choices and making important decisions on what course one plans to take to make up for them. I know one thing for sure, what ever he does, it's going to take everyone by surprise. Melpomene From Audra1976 at aol.com Sun Dec 8 19:25:45 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:25:45 EST Subject: How Voldemort knew about the protection (was: Re: Voldemort/DE's/Riddle,Hagrid) Message-ID: <10e.1b4d0738.2b24f6b9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47960 catlady at wicca.net writes: > Daniel Brent wrote: > << How does Voldemort know about this protection? He was Vapormort > until GoF >> > One presumes that either Quirrel or Wormtail told him. Quirrel could > have known if he had learned about it from Dumbledore, and Wormtail > Me: It's my opinion that Voldemort knew how the protection worked at the time, but it was another one of those things he "forgot" until it was too late, just like the Phoenix tears in CoS. He was temporarily blinded by his own ambition. I think that's always been Voldemort's Achilles' Heel. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sun Dec 8 20:05:22 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:05:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] How Voldemort knew about the protection (was: Re: Voldemo... Message-ID: <194.1175b92a.2b250002@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47961 In a message dated 12/8/2002 2:24:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Audra1976 at aol.com writes: > > Daniel Brent wrote: > > << How does Voldemort know about this protection? He was Vapormort > > until GoF >> > > One presumes that either Quirrel or Wormtail told him. Quirrel could > > have known if he had learned about it from Dumbledore, and Wormtail Me: He could've figured it out on his own. After all, Dumbledore did. And Voldemort's had more time to think on it. At first I thought it might've had something to do with Harry telling 16 y/o Tom about it, but there seems to be too many flaws in that. Like if that information was passed on to present day Voldemort, why couldn't it have been passed on to 'about to try and kill baby Harry' Voldemort? No...I think he figured out on this own. ^^ ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 20:18:26 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 20:18:26 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Sympathy For the Devil (8 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47962 Eight Sympathy For the Devil ----------- "You didn't *really* think that I was going to argue against Crouch's last scene being a redemption scene, did you?" asks Elkins, helping Eileen to haul the overturned CRAB CUSTARD table back up onto its legs. Now that there is clean up to be done, Cindy has absented herself. Ever since this past summer, she has been decidedly hesitant whenever it comes to helping to clean up wreckage. Something about a Portkey, and the Safe House. Eileen lets go of her end of the table, steps back a few paces, and surveys the damage, scowling. "You *did* so argue," she says. "Well...yes, okay, I did, but only because I *could.* I mean, you *know* that I can never resist an opportunity to show off like that. But I didn't actually go through with it, did I? I let the angels have him, in the end." Elkins stoops down and begins picking up the scattered cups of CRAB CUSTARD, one by one. "Although, you know," she adds, smiling slightly. "It does seem to me that those angels might just have to wait a little while..." Eileen's brow furrows, then clears. Her eyes light up. "Point Nine of the CRAB CUSTARD manifesto!" she exclaims. > 9. J.K. Rowling said that it's the unhappy people who come > back as ghosts. I can't think of a person in all the books > who dies more unhappily than Crouch Sr. "I've been plugging for *months* for Barty Crouch Sr. to return as a ghost," she says. "No-one in canon dies a death quite as unhappy as he does, and it could tie in quite nicely to our dodgy auror subplot." She frowns suddenly. "Unless of course the dodgy auror subplot exists only in our feverish brains..." "O, ye of little faith!" exclaims Elkins. "Why, of *course* there's going to be a dodgy auror subplot coming our way! It's practically a canonical inevitability at this point in the game! But even leaving aside those Bad Bad Aurors, I do think that Crouch as future canonical ghost makes quite a bit of sense. He seems like a prime candidate to me. And not just because he dies unhappily." "You mean also because he died at the hands of his son?" asks Eileen. "Parricide is a pretty big taboo. That's got to count for something." "Well, maybe it does. Maybe it does. Mainly, though, I was thinking...well, isn't there a tradition about people coming back as ghosts when they die with unfinished business on their hands? When you look at the ghosts that we've already seen so far in canon, a lot of them do seem to have some pretty evident, er, unresolved issues. In fact, just as I've been typing this, Shane Dunphy has posted a truly spectacular thing on that aspect of Myrtle's character. It's message #47531." "Is that the one about Myrtle being trapped in an, uh, anal stage of development?" asks Eileen, frowning. "That's Freudian or something, isn't it? I never really understand all that Freudian stuff." "Well, you don't really have to accept the Freud to see that she's trapped in an arrested state of development," says Elkins. "She's an adolescent voyeur. We're told that she was confined to Hogwarts because she had been haunting her old school tormentor, Olive Hornby. Refusal to forgive old adolescent grudges really does seem to be a recurring motif in these novels. And then there's Nick, who was never fully beheaded. And the Baron's all covered with that silver blood, which so many people have suggested could be unicorn blood..." "What about the Fat Friar? Or the Gray Lady?" "We've barely even *seen* the Gray Lady. And the Fat Friar might well have some unresolved issue that we just haven't learned about yet. At any rate," adds Elkins quickly, noticing Eileen's hand reaching for a Yellow Flag. "I still think that there's a pattern here." "What about Binns?" "He was eagerly awaiting his pension when he died?" Eileen looks at her. "Oh, all right," sighs Elkins. "I don't know. But the way that Crouch died really does seem to me to make him classic revenant fodder. He died desperately trying to convey a vitally important message. A message that never got through. If anyone died with some pretty serious unfinished business on their hands, I'd say that it was Crouch. For that matter," she adds. "His son is sort of unfinished business too, when you think about it." "Also," Eileen reminds her. "He received a *most* improper burial." "Transfigured into a bone and then buried in unconsecrated ground by his murderer?" Elkins thinks about it for a moment. "Yeah," she agrees. "That's pretty improper, all right." "*And* in Hagrid's garden," points out Eileen. "Right on the borders of the Forbidden Forest. Just think what the Forbidden Forest did to the Anglia!" "Oh, good point! Not to mention whatever Hagrid slips in his compost to make those pumpkins grow so big. And then, also, he died while under the Imperius Curse, which is a form of magical compulsion. His will was still partially bound to anothers when he died. Really, he just seems an absolutely perfect candidate to me. Or he *would,* except for this one little thing..." Eileen frowns. "What?" she asks. "Well, the basis for Crouch-as-Ghost is really that interview, isn't it? The one in which JKR seems to be promising a ghost subplot in a future volume? "You're not about to tell me that the Intentional Fallacy Is Not Fair Play and renders my theory non-canonical, are you?" "No, no. Of course not. We don't say things like that around here. No, it's just...well, it seems to me that Crouch would indeed be the front-runner for our future canonical ghost if only that subplot had been promised for the *next* volume. But if you actually go and look at the original interview itself...well..." ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm Q: What makes some witches/wizards become ghosts after they die and some not? JKR: You don't really find that out until Book VII, but I can say that the happiest people do not become ghosts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Oh." says Eileen. "Book Seven." "Yeah. Which does somehow make it seem less likely to me that it's going to be Crouch. Because...well, Book Seven is rather a long way away, isn't it? The fact that JKR's talking Book Seven makes me think that it's actually far more likely to be, well, *Snape* than it is a Book Four character like Barty Crouch." There is an unhappy silence. "Oh, never mind," sighs Elkins. "I'm not giving up on Ghost!Crouch that easily. I'm just not. He's too perfect. Besides, JKR only said that the readers weren't going find out what *makes* people become ghosts until Book Seven. She didn't say that there wouldn't *be* any new ghost characters before then, did she? And besides, Ghost!Crouch is just too good to pass up. Because you know, he could serve a really interesting *plot* function if he were to come back as a ghost." "You mean there's Bang?" asks Eileen. "Should we tell Cindy? "No, we'd best not. It's really only a Humpty-Dumptied Bang, and we probably shouldn't encourage her in those. Well...unless you think that he wasn't redeemed in death, I suppose. Then I guess it could be Bangy. You see, I just keep wondering...well, Crouch died while still under the Imperius Curse. So does that mean that Voldemort might still be able to command him? Even from beyond the grave? Yet another faithful servant at Hogwarts?" "Elkins!" cries Eileen. "That's just horrible! What is *wrong* with you?" "Well, what do you think. Could he?" "You *still* haven't made your peace with poor old Crouch, have you? You just don't want to let the poor man find any peace at all. Not even in death." "Hey, you're the one who brought Ghost!Crouch into this. I'm just taking your ball and running with it, that's all. See, the thing is that Crouch didn't really die free of the Imperius, did he? Unless he had some breakthrough in his very last moments, he was still under it. When Harry shakes off the Imperius, it's just gone. When Crouch Jr. finally breaks free of it completely, he describes it as being himself as he hasn't been in years. But even before that happened, he was still capable of small acts of rebellion. He was able to steal Harry's wand *before* the sound of those DEs acted like cold water on him. So I think that's about where Crouch Sr. was. He wasn't clear of it. He was just fighting it. Wasn't that what accounted for his apparent madness?" "Oh, is that what you thought it was?" asks Eileen. "I thought..." Her voice trails away. "What?" "well, er, have you ever wondered what Voldemort did to Crouch in the little time he had him at his disposal? Imperius isn't the Unforgivable Curse that is known to leave people insane, you know." Elkins stares at her. She puts the plastic spoons that she has been gathering up from the pavement down in a neat little pile at her side, and sits back hard on her heels. "Do you know," she says slowly. "I have never even *thought* about that? Not even once. What sort of a morbid imagination have I, anyway? I should turn in my FEATHERBOAS this very minute. You've a very nasty little mind, Eileen." "I know," Eileen says shyly. "That's a spectacularly sick line of speculation. But I wouldn't be so sure about the Imperius not driving people insane, if I were you. So far in canon to date, we've only seen two people other than Harry, who is some sort of weird freakish savant, struggle free of the Imperius by their own force of will. They're both named Bartemius Crouch. And neither of them seems to have gained much in the way of sanity by it. And besides," adds Elkins, smiling. "You really do want to be careful with that logic, you know." "I do?" "Oh, yes. You really do. Because, you see, Crouch Jr. was mad as a hatter, and *he'd* been his *father's* prisoner for the past ten years. You know, Cindy once told me that if Crouch Jr. were her son, she'd have, uh, 'taken him to the woodshed.' I'm not altogether certain what that phrase means, but I believe that it has something to do with corporal punishment. Sort of like 'taking someone out behind the chemical sheds,' I guess. But far less permanent. Have you ever wondered if Crouch punished his son for that little outburst at the QWC? He must have been absolutely furious with him, I should think. And Winky wasn't around to calm him down anymore." "I don't think that Crouch would ever have practiced Cruciatus on his son," says Eileen firmly. "No," agrees Elkins, rather surprisingly. "I don't either. I think that he probably would have balked at that. Voldemort, on the other hand..." She sighs. "Oh, Eileen. I really wish that you hadn't brought that up. Crouch was ill-treated, all right." "It is a not-so-pleasant topic of speculation, isn't it?" says Eileen, just a trifle smugly. "I *told* you that the punishment exceeded the crime." "No, no." Elkins shakes her head. "No, you don't...it's even worse than you think. Crouch was *definitely* ill-treated. But not just because Voldemort is a sadist. Also because...well, his plan really did rely on Crouch Jr. for quite a lot, didn't it? It relied on him to act with a good deal of autonomy, under no supervision whatsoever. It relied on him to be not only competent, but *extremely* loyal. Voldemort's not usually too trusting of his DEs, is he? And really, why on earth should he be? Unless you go in for a Magic Dishwasher approach, they're treacherous scum. At the beginning of GoF, Voldemort suggests that Pettigrew is planning on scarpering on him. He is resolutely unimpressed with his DEs' protestations of loyalty in the graveyard. Yet he really does seem awfully convinced of *Crouch's* loyalty. Why? After all, given Crouch Jr's situation when Voldemort liberated him from his father's Imperius Curse, he was naturally going to pay lip service to Voldemort no matter what his actual degree of loyalty. He would have been crazy not to. Yet Voldemort truly does seem to trust him. So what convinced him that Crouch Jr. really was so utterly and unquestioningly devoted to his service?" "I did try to *warn* you that this was a not-so-pleasant topic of speculation, Elkins," says Eileen, smiling. "You can't really imagine that I haven't already been here myself, can you? Why didn't you just *listen* to me when I told you that it didn't bear thinking about?" "I can't help it," moans Elkins. "Whenever somebody advises me not to think about something, I always find that I can think of nothing else. That's the real reason I liked Denethor so much, you see. It was that Palantir. I'd *never* be able to resist staring into one of those things. *Especially* if I knew that it could take me to a Bad Place." She sighs. "Yeah, Crouch Jr. had his father screaming and writhing down there on the floor, all right," she concludes. "Ugh. And I'll bet that he really enjoyed it, too. 'You are not my father. I have no father.' Tit for tat, you know. Barty Jr. really did enjoy tit for tat." "And this is a character you identify with." "Yeah, I know. It's just awful, isn't it? But I can't help it." Elkins shakes her head firmly. "All right," she says. "That's quite enough of *that,* I think. I think that it's time to put that entire line of speculation safely away in the little box where I keep *all* of the things about these books that I prefer not to dwell on. You know, like where precisely that Ugly Baby body of Voldemort's came from in the first place. Or that potion in Moste Potente Potions, the one that turns people inside out. Or--" "Or Crouch Jr. getting the Dementor's Kiss?" Eileen asks, with an exceptionally twisted smile. "Oh, *don't.*" Elkins shudders. "You know that I can't even stand to imagine that." "Well, I have a similar reaction to Crouch Sr's death," says Eileen. "Have you ever tried to imagine the final scene between him and his son? I always back away from it. I have tried to convince myself that it was done quickly, and that Crouch didn't realize what was happening, that he was fluently conversing with Weatherby at the time. But I can't really believe that. And I don't want to think about what really happened." "I know what you mean." Elkins lowers her voice. "In fact," she says. "I'll let you in on a little secret here, Eileen. I've never liked imagining the man's death either." "What? But I thought that you *loved* the idea of Crouch Jr. kicking around his poor old father. I thought that sort of thing made you cackle with malicious glee!" "Well, usually it does. But not there. I mean, the poor man's already *broken,* isn't he? That takes all the fun out of it, somehow. Nah, I always find myself hoping that Barty Jr. just, er, well, you know. Took him from behind. Quickly. And didn't feel the need to go making some big *production* number out of it or anything." "You do remember who we're talking about here." "Yeah." Elkins sighs. "Sadly, I do. And it really is rather hard to imagine that he wouldn't have wanted to spit out at least one 'sic semper tyrannis,' isn't it? Or to look into his father's eyes while he did it? Like Brutus and his sons, you know." She smiles faintly. "Just like staring into a mirror." "You really are a rather disturbing person, Elkins. Do you know that?" "But all the same," Elkins says quickly. "I think that he would have done it fast. He was in a hurry, after all. He wouldn't have wanted to risk getting caught. And he knew that Harry was going to be returning at any moment with Dumbledore. He was actually there in his Invisibility Cloak, watching the entirety of that conversation between his father and Harry and Krum, so he would have known that he hadn't any time to waste." "That's true," agrees Eileen slowly. "Also, the forest was just *swarming* with red herrings that night, wasn't it? Ludo Bagman was bopping around somewhere, and Madame Maxine's carriage wasn't too far away, and on top of all of that, he had just come across *two* students out there in the woods. How could he know how many other random people might come wandering by at any moment? I mean, from his perspective, it must have seemed like Grand Central Station out there, don't you think? Rather surreal, really. Almost farcical. And very nerve-wracking, I'm sure. "So I feel convinced that he did it quickly and cleanly," Elkins concludes. "I just can't imagine that he would have wanted to waste any time, or been willing to risk any unwanted attention. I mean, he wouldn't have wanted there to be any screaming, you know, or any broken *weeping,* or any horrified *pleading,* or..." "Do you *mind?*" "Oh." Elkins blinks. "Sorry. Sorry about that, Eileen. Sorry. I just mean, you know, that he wouldn't have wanted there to be any noise. That's all. And also..." She takes a deep breath. "Also," she says, with a faint air of finality. "I don't think that he really wanted to do it." "Oh, now, you *DO* remember who we're talking about here!" "Yes, I do. We're talking about someone who in many ways is portrayed as a walking manifestation of the law of the mirror: the law of *Nemesis.* In some respects, he's almost like a personification of Turnabout itself. He has a *very* strongly developed, if also totally twisted, sense of justice. He was so absolutely infuriated by the sight of all of those smug successful DEs at the QWC that it enabled him to overcome the Imperius Curse completely for the first time in over a decade. He goes out of his way to treat his father's corpse to this sort of weirdly metaphoric variation on the theme of how his father treated his mother's body -- and by extension, his own. He nearly gives himself away with his rather excessive reaction to Draco Malfoy's unfair duelling tactics. He's just dying to learn that Voldemort punished the unfaithful at his rebirthing. In his confession, he takes particular pleasure in remembering his father being placed under the Imperius Curse. Turnabout. Tit for tat. That's what young Crouch enjoyed. Even that sense of irony of his I tend to see as related to a kind of twisted sense of justice. Dramatic irony and Nemesis are very strongly related concepts. Crouch Jr's sense of justice may have been downright *weird,* but it still seems to me to have been one of his more predominant characteristics." "Elkins, you've just suggested yourself that the evil little monster not only tortured his father for Voldemort's amusement, but also that he *enjoyed* it!" "Oh, but that's completely *different,* Eileen!" Elkins stares at her. "That's not the same thing at *all.* You see, *that,*" she explains. "Was Fair Play." "Fair *PLAY*?" "Sure. His father tortured him, didn't he? Threw him to the dementors. Tried to brainwash him. Not to mention whatever 'taking him to the woodshed' might ever have happened. So that makes it turnabout. Tit for tat -- plus a good bit of interest. Perfectly fair play, according to Crouch Jr's standards." "But--" "He liked seeing his father enslaved, as he himself had been enslaved. He liked seeing his father helpless and subject at the hands of his enemies, as he himself had been helpless and subject at the hands of his enemies. He liked seeing his father suffer, as he himself had been made to suffer. I think that he probably even liked *making* his father suffer, even to the extent of the Cruciatus. But did he really like the idea of his father actually being *killed?*" Elkins shakes her head. "I don't know if I really think that he did," she says. "Because you see, no matter what else Crouch Sr. may have done to his son, he *did* preserve his life." "But surely he must have realized that Voldemort was going to murder his father eventually," says Eileen. "Yeah, one would think. Although young Barty...well, he wasn't really altogether attuned to reality, was he? At the end of his confession, he's retreated into this pathetic little fantasy that Voldemort is going to come along and save him, and then he'll be sitting at his right hand, honored above all other Death Eaters. I mean, let's face it. The poor lad was schizoid. He wasn't precisely a realist." "I think you're whitewashing," says Eileen flatly. "Whitewashing? I've admitted that I think he got a kick out of Crucio'ing his poor old Dad, haven't I? I'm not whitewashing him. He wasn't a nice fellow. But I see plenty of indications in the text that parricide did not agree with him at all. We actually see him right after he's done it, you know. When he stomps up to Dumbledore and Harry, who are dealing with the stunned Krum, it's got to be only minutes after he's killed his father. And he seems to be in a right foul mood. He masks it by complaining about his leg. 'Furiously.' That's partly to cover for his absence, obviously, but my feeling is that he's drawing off of that emotion from somewhere. Crouch does seem to have been rather a method actor. I don't believe there is *anywhere* in the canon where we see Crouch/Moody showing strong emotion when Crouch does not himself have reasons to be feeling strongly emotional about something." "Perhaps," says Eileen. "But the strong emotion that he was drawing off of could have been vindictive satisfaction. Or fear about the possibility of getting caught. Or--" "He looks like hell the next morning," says Elkins. "When Harry, Ron and Hermione seek him out, the next day. He really doesn't look too good at all. He's exhausted, he's twitchy, he's utterly on edge..." "That could just be because he had been out all night long, pretending to be looking for his father. And because he had a close shave, which got him a little stressed. And because he now knows that Dumbledore knows that his father had been trying to convey an important message, so he's quite reasonably fearful that Dumbledore might figure it all out. Especially if Harry tells Dumbledore that his father kept mentioning him while he was raving." "Perhaps." "He's certainly not feeling guilty enough to refrain from delivering one of his horrible Crouchisms," points out Eileen. "'Now, Dumbledore's told me you three fancy yourselves as investigators, but there's nothing you can do for Crouch.' Now isn't that charming. It's...Elkins, you're grinning. Stop it." "Sorry." Elkins attempts to reconfigure her expression to one of gravity. "Sorry, Eileen. Sorry. Okay, yeah. He delivers a Crouchism. But he still doesn't look so hot to me. JKR really seems to be going out of her way in that scene to describe him as exhausted and stressed. There's even that bit where it looks as if he's very nearly slipped up on remembering to take his potion: 'He looked as tired as they felt. The eyelid of his normal eye was drooping, giving his face an even more lopsided appearance than usual.' And then, almost immediately thereafter, he's chugging from his hip flask. Do you think he was actually starting to transform there? Right in front of students? That's really careless for Crouch. My feeling has always been that that's a sign that he's starting to slip. I don't get the impresssion that he was at all pleased about having been called upon to murder his father." "He *boasts* about it, Elkins," says Eileen. "He brags of it to Harry." "Yes, he does. 'And both of us had the pleasure...the very great pleasure... of killing our fathers to ensure the continued rise of the Dark Order!' What gives with those ellipses? With the repetition, the added emphasis? Doesn't that sound rather like he's protesting a bit too much?" "You *are* whitewashing." "No, I'm not. In Part Five I went over some of the ways in which Crouch Jr. seems to be rationalizing in his confession. Why would he feel the need to rationalize at all, if he didn't feel at least some degree of ambivalence over what he had done? And it's not the only thing about his confession that implies that parricide was not really to his tastes either." Elkins rises to her feet and walks over to her satchel. She bends down, rummages through it, and pulls out her copy of 'Sympathy For the Devil: Veritaserum, A Close Reading.' Eileen groans and rolls her eyes. "Oh, not *this* again!" she complains. "Elkins, you can't really tell a *thing* from that confession. On the meta-level, that entire scene is engineered by the author to provide plot exposition for the reader. And on the level of the fictive reality, he's speaking under *compulsion.* Furthermore, the veritaserum is dulling his affect..." "It is compelling him, and it is dulling his affect," Elkins agrees. "But that doesn't prevent him from expressing himself emotionally, nor from volunteering information that is not demanded of him. And JKR *does* use the confession to elucidate his character and motivations, as well as to explain the plot. She uses it for that a great deal. Just about everything that we know about his motivations or his character comes from the confession scene, and most of it is actually not offered in direct response to Dumbledore's questions. I think that if JKR had wanted to show Barty Jr. as an eager parricide, then she would have written this scene very differently. "Just look." ====================================================================== While Crouch Jr's testimony in the 'Veritaserum' chapter is indeed largely a matter of plot exposition, I think that we can deduce quite a bit from it about his character and motives as well. For one thing, it is clear from his testimony that he *is,* in fact, capable of quite a bit of digression. He is also capable of emotional, subjective, and non-factual testimony. This is how Crouch Jr describes his experience at the QWC. The "question" which he is answering in this passage is: "Tell me about the Quidditch World Cup." ---------------- "Then we heard them. We heard the Death Eaters. The ones who had never been to Azkaban. The ones who had never suffered for my master. They had turned their backs on him. They were not enslaved, as I was. They were free to seek him, but they did not. They were merely making sport of Muggles. The sound of their voices awoke me. My mind was clearer than it had been in years. I was angry. I had the wand." ----------------- Okay. His affect is certainly deadened, although I've never been altogether clear on whether that's really completely due to the Veritaserum, or whether it's also due to the fact that he's finally slipped his very last mooring. I rather suspect that it's a bit of both. Whatever the cause, though, it doesn't prevent him either from volunteering information or from showing insight. Dumbledore did not ask him to explain his motives for behaving as he did at the QWC. He did not ask him about the wand. He did not ask him about breaking free of the Imperius Curse. Crouch Jr. is volunteering all of that information, based on his *own* interpretion of what about the QWC is important, relevant, or of interest. And given the emotional nature of the above passage, I think that it is also clear that to a certain extent, he is choosing to focus on what about this event was of importance to *him.* This is really not factual testimony. It's not a 'just the facts, ma'am' account. It is subjective, emotional, and personal. Nor is Crouch Jr. completely deadened in affect, although he is extremely dissociated. He's not exactly a zombie. He is capable of emotional responses, albeit of a rather disturbing sort. ---------------------- "'My father answered the door.' "The smile spread wider over Crouch's face, as though recalling the sweetest memory of his life. Winky's petrified brown eyes were visible through her fingers. She seemed too appalled to speak. "'It was very quick. My father was placed under the Imperius Curse by my master. Now my father was the one imprisoned, controlled.'" --------------------------------------- That's what Veritaserum'd!Barty looks like when he's enjoying the memory of a bit of payback on dear old Dad, yes? He's not so far gone that he can't display emotion, albeit of a rather mad sort, at the memory of vengeance. And he doesn't lack insight so utterly as to be incapable of explaining the extent to which his pleasure at this memory derives from Turnabout-Is-Fair-Playdom either. He may have bats in his belfry, but he is perfectly emotionally comprehensible. He can explain his motives, and he seems often to be interested in doing so, even when it is not technically required of him. He does so at times quite eloquently, in fact: "It was my dream, my greatest ambition, to serve him, to prove myself to him." But this is all that he has to say about his act of parricide: ---------------------------- "'My master sent me word of my father's escape. He told me to stop him at all costs. So I waited and watched. I used the map...'" There then follows some discussion of the Map, and then: "'For a week I waited for my father to arrive at Hogwarts. At last, one evening, the map showed my father entering the grounds. I pulled on my Invisibility Cloak and went down to meet him. He was walking around the edge of the forest. Then Potter came, and Krum. I waited. I could not hurt Potter; my master needed him. Potter ran to get Dumbledore. I Stunned Krum. I killed my father.'" -------------------- And that's it. There's no editorial commentary there. No mad grin. No gloating. No description of his feelings about this turn of events. Nothing. It's a very stark series of statements of fact, and it is nothing at all like the way he speaks of recovering his own volition after a decade under the Imperius, or of firing the Dark Mark into the sky at the QWC, or of watching Voldemort overpower his father. Dumbledore then gives him an opening to elaborate on the parricide if he so chooses. "You killed your father?" Crouch Jr. says absolutely *nothing* in response to this, although he does answer the next question about what he did with the body: "Carried it into the forest. Covered it with the Invisibility Cloak." We're back to choppy sentences and 'just the facts' here, although Crouch is in fact *not* incapable of a far more eloquent mode of diction. He will prove this with the very last line of his confession: "My master's plan worked. He is returned to power and I will be honored by him beyond the dreams of wizards." Even at the very end, his diction is not so degraded that he cannot manage that sentence. But when asked about the disposal of his father's body, incomplete and choppy sentences are all he has to offer. Crouch Jr. does not speak of murdering his father in at all the same way that he speaks of either his acts of anger or of payback events that he actually took pleasure in. He shows no signs of enjoyment at the memory, nor any inclination to elaborate upon the event any further than he absolutely must do to satisfy his interrogator. While he may imply to Harry that he considered it an act of homage to Voldemort, when he is actually under the Veritaserum and therefore compelled to speak the truth, the only motive that he offers is that he was under direct orders to see it done "at all costs." He is not even willing to confess to it a second time: he does not assent when Dumbledore asks for confirmation that he killed his father. His diction degenerates into choppy broken sentences when he is forced to discuss it. Compare his diction here with his diction when he speaks of topics on which he *does* seem proud of his actions and eager to communicate his motives: his devotion to Voldemort, his fury with the disloyal DES at the QWC. Compare his affect here with his affect when he speaks of Voldemort's arrival at his father's home. All of this leads me to conclude that Crouch really didn't enjoy killing his father at all. He was clearly willing to do it. But I don't think that he was at all happy about it. ===================================================================== "There, now," says Elkins soothingly. "You see, Eileen? My Crouch Jr. apologetics aren't really all that bad, are they? That one can give you a fast and painless death for poor Barty." "They're pure sophistry, Elkins." "Nonsense. It's all right there in the text. Here." Elkins pulls a leaflet entitled 'Barty Crouch Jr: Unwilling Parricide' out of her satchel and hands to to Eileen. "You can keep that one," she says, generously. "No charge." "I found the 'he wouldn't have wanted to risk any unnecessary noise' argument much more convincing." "Yes, well." Elkins frowns. "You *would,* wouldn't you. At any rate, it's really not Crouch's death that makes me pity him. I'm pretty well convinced that was relatively fast and painless. It's his life. What were you saying about the last months of his life before? Er...leaving aside the more unsavory speculations, if you would?" "I said that he spent the last months of his life physically and spiritually alone," says Eileen. "Tormented by his own choices." "Yes. But really, it had been going on longer than that, hadn't it? At least a decade. Ever since his wife died and he rescued his son. I mean, really, when you think about it, what sort of a life could the poor man have possibly had? He did not encourage familiarity from his associates, to say the least. He seems to have had no intimates, and no real friends. The nature of the secret that he was keeping would have prevented him from forging any new associations. He would have wanted to keep people at a distance, and certainly away from his *house.* Bertha Jorkins came by when he wasn't home, and I don't get the impression that this was a common occurrence, people dropping by old Crouch's house to say hello and have a cup of tea. Certainly Winky doesn't seem to have had the slightest idea how to handle the situation properly. Jorkins was probably the first visitor they'd had in *years.* And his son wouldn't have been very good company for him, I wouldn't think. Not under the Imperius Curse. Even assuming that Crouch had *wanted* to deal with his son on any normal or personable level, which I don't believe for a second that he did. You see, that's another problem with trying to make the world into your hall of mirrors. It gets *lonely.* "And that's where I see the punishment exceeding the crime, frankly," concludes Elkins. "Solitude may be in some sense a *just* punishment for a solipsist. But ten years of having no one to talk to is really more than anyone deserves." "Well," Eileen points out. "He did have Winky." "Yes." Elkins smiles slowly. "He had Winky." She glances up at the subject line emblazoned across the sky above Theory Bay and shakes her head. "Well," she says. "My, my, my. Would you just look at that." "What?" "I do believe that we're going to need a second prefix up there." "Elkins!" gasps Eileen. "You're *not!*" Elkins grins evilly. "Oooooh, yes I am," she says. *************** Elkins ********************************************************************** This post is continued from part seven. It cites or references message numbers 37476, 45402, 46468, 47531. For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sun Dec 8 20:20:10 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:20:10 EST Subject: The Time Turner Message-ID: <6b.3e8cf20.2b25037a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47963 Again, I hope you'll accept my sincere apologies if this has been done to death. ^^; And why make Time Turners if they can be so dangerous? We've seen evidence of a good few 'bad' wizards who could easily get a Time Turner. I also wonder what other kind of special circumstances there have been that Time Turners have been needed. Even Hermione couldn't be trusted. Yes, the whole Black/Buckbeak was really Dumbledore's plan, but that doesn't change the fact that what she did was illegal. Also, has it been said anywhere how far back a Time Turner can go? ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 20:45:45 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 20:45:45 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How Voldemort knew about the protection (was: Re: Voldemo... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47964 Daniel Brent wrote: > How does Voldemort know about this protection? He was Vapormort until >GoF. Audra wrote: >He could've figured it out on his own. After all, Dumbledore did. And >Voldemort's had more time to think on it. Me then: Yeah, I think that this is the correct idea. If you look at the sequence in canon that relates to this (Chapter 33, GoF), we see that Voldemort was completely taken by surprise by Harry deflecting AK back at him. The "ancient magic" was overlooked by Voldemort. He admits this, even referring to himself as "foolish". I reckon that he realised his mistake almost immediately, but by then of course it was far too late, he was already "less than spirit" and helpless. As to Harry's being protected by the Dursley's, I believe that Voldemort also found this out through experience. Voldemort again discusses this in Chapter 33 (p 570 British edition). "...he has been better protected than I think he even knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there..." How does Voldemort know this? It makes sense to assume that once Voldemort had become Quirrellmort he tried to get at Harry in Privet Drive, and found that he could not. Of course, the fact that Harry's mother's sacrifice protected Harry even from LV's touch, Quirrellmort discovered to his detriment in PS. It seems to me that LV has been learning as he goes along. Shane. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From mb2910 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 20:58:50 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 20:58:50 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner In-Reply-To: <6b.3e8cf20.2b25037a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47965 Cassie: And why make Time Turners if they can be so dangerous? We've seen evidence of a good few 'bad' wizards who could easily get a Time Turner. I also wonder what other kind of special circumstances there have been that Time Turners have been needed. Even Hermione couldn't be trusted. Yes, the whole Black/Buckbeak was really Dumbledore's plan, but that doesn't change the fact that what she did was illegal. Also, has it been said anywhere how far back a Time Turner can go? Me: Technology, or objects isn't what is dangerous. What *is* dangerous is the people that will use it and their motives. Besides, once something is developed, or created, it's like Pandora's Box, can't be closed, for better or worse. Circumstances when the Time Turner has been needed? perhaps there was wild misuse of the TT in the past, which is why the use of one is strictly regulated (or illegal?, not sure, will check it up). Obviously the TT cannot be used to prevent people from dying (or else James and Lily wouldn't have died, for example), or to interfere with "big" events, but when it comes to small, harmless things like letting a student have more study time, then they are needed, and their use approved by the MoM. The Black/Buckbeak situation: I agree that it was illegal, but there's a morality issue here: what would be preferable? helping someone escape from a Dementor Kiss, or at least a life sentence in Azkaban when he doesn't deserve them, or abiding the law? I would chose helping the person escape any time. As for how far a TT can go, I assume you just have to turn it enough times to go to the desired time, up to several hours ago, and if you want to go a few days ago, then you have to turn it, but in a different manner. Drinking a cup of coffee, doing (still, *sigh*) the R&J paper, Meira. From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Dec 8 21:44:16 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 21:44:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY/SHIP: Crouch - Winky As Wife and Mother (9 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47966 Nine Winky as Wife and Mother --------------- "You aren't really going to propose this," says Eileen. "Are you, Elkins?" Elkins glances up to the sky and smiles. The subject line emblazoned across the heavens slowly fades away, to be replaced by a new one: "TBAY/SHIP: Crouch - Winky as Wife and Mother (9 of 9)" Down on the beach, Affective Fallacy pricks up his ears, suddenly at the alert. The Sirius and Snape fans who have been squabbling over the rights to ride him stand back and look up. Several LANDLUBBERS let out shrieks of pure horror and flee inland, wailing and gnashing their teeth. "Oh, honesty." Elkins rolls her eyes. "They're fine with it when it involves *Death Eaters.*" "I can't believe you're doing this." "Well, why on earth not?" Elkins glances up at the CRAB CUSTARD banner. "He is Dead Sexy, isn't he?" "Well, yes. But--" "And you said yourself that Winky seems to occupy the role of his wife." "Well, yes, but--" "Really, the man must have been very lonely after his wife's death, wouldn't you think? He had no friends. He disappears from his workplace for weeks on end, and the person who actually has the best insight into his condition -- which is to say, none at all -- is his brand new teenaged assistant. It's really quite pathetic, when you think about it. Charis once suggested that it was part of what made him such an inviting tool. Nobody *knew* him. Do you really think that he would have been celibate for all that time? Does that really seem in character for Crouch to you?" "Well..." "He was hardly geriatric. He was prematurely aged. Still quite vital. And he does seem to have been a man of rather...well, strong passions." Elkins smiles. "As I think you've noticed, Eileen, although I *do* find it interesting that you've never actually once cited that aspect of his character as a part of your CRAB CUSTARD defense." "I, er, well..." Eileen shifts from foot to foot. "Mmm-hmmm." Elkins smirks. "Those fits of apoplectic rage, those suddenly bulging eyes. Sudden and abrupt *tumescence,* yes? It is suggestive of a rather...passionate nature, that. Rather like the way that the Snapefans can sometimes get about those throbbing veins that poor dear Severus develops whenever he's...oh. Oh my! My, I really *am* embarrassing you here, aren't I?" Elkins steps back a few paces and regards Eileen with frank interest. "Now that is a truly extraordinary color," she says. "How on earth do you *manage* that?" "Can we just agree that he must have been lonely and move on?" gasps Eileen. "All right. We'll drop the tumescence then. Okay, the guy was lonely. For around ten years, he'd had Winky as his only confidante. She was the only person who knew his secret. She was the only person he had to talk to. And we know that he did talk to her, too, and not just about household matters, either. He talked to her about workplace issues. He talked to her about Ludo Bagman. He talked to her about his job. Those aren't things that you normally discuss with the help. They're things you discuss with your *wife.* Or your mistress." "Well, yes, but--" "Crouch allowed Winky to intercede with him on behalf of his son. She played the role of his wife there, too, the role of his son's mother. She occupied the maternal intercessionary role, mitigating his paternal discipline. And she threw the memory of his dead wife against him, just exactly like a second wife might do. Or again, a mistress." "Well..." "You've said yourself that he seems to have been unduly influenced by her. Under his control. Didn't you even use the phrase 'under her thumb,' at one point, Eileen?" Elkins shakes her head. "That's a dynamic that usually comes about between a man and a woman that he is *sleeping* with, isn't it? There's an exceptionally vulgar term for it, actually. Needless to say, I won't use it here." "Er." "She even gets described in much the same language as Mrs. Crouch does in her one appearance. You said it yourself: the entire Crouch Sr./Mrs. Crouch dynamic is recreated between Crouch Sr. and Winky." "*Minus* that!" says Eileen. "Minus that! I was not suggesting that...errr...there was something going on between the elder Crouch and Winky." "I know," says Elkins. "I know that you weren't. But I am. It actually *was* my instinctive reading, you know. Even the very first time I read the book, I was assuming that--" "That's just because you're BENT, Elkins!" "She acts like she's in love with him," says Elkins quietly. "Even Ron notices that, and Ron is a fourteen-year-old boy. He says that she seems to love him. He says it without a trace of sniggering or contempt or irony or hyperbole. He says it in dead earnest. 'Love' really isn't a word that laddish fourteen-year-old boys like Ron use all that lightly, is it?" "Ron also says that Percy loves Crouch," Eileen points out. "And I don't think that he was suggesting that they were having an affair." "When she hears that he's been at Hogwarts as a Triwizard Judge, she perks up immediately," says Elkins. "She responds to the idea that he might be in the vicinity, that she might be able to see him again 'breathlessly'. Her reaction to having been dismissed from his service is completely neurotic. It's not normal. She doesn't accept her new terms of service. She won't accept the uniform. She won't take on new duties. She sits around in the clothes that he gave her all day long and snivels. She turns to drink. If there really is some form of magical compulsion which drives the house elves, then surely that must be every bit as bad a violation of it as Dobby's iconoclasm, don't you think? It's certainly a violation of their *ethos.* The other elves are absolutely disgusted by her behavior." "She's devoted to him," says Eileen. "Indeed." "Like *Percy* is devoted to him. It doesn't mean that they were--" "The two situations are different. Percy does have a kind of a crush on Crouch, but Crouch can't even remember his *name.* His relationship with Winky isn't anything like that. He doesn't strike me as the least bit disinterested in her. You've implied yourself that he loved her." Eileen sighs. "I would be hard pressed to believe that there was no emotional bond between Winky and him," she admits. "So would I. When I read a character described like Crouch is desribed at the QWC, 'his face somehow sharpened, each line upon it more deeply etched,' I assume that person really is suffering quite badly, no matter how little pity he may have in his gaze. That's a physical description of a man in pain. Seriously, now. Is there any particular reason why we should assume that a relationship which in all other respects seems to replicate a sexual relationship should *not* have had a sexual component? I mean, is there any reason that we should assume that Winky was *not* sharing his bed?" "Well..." Eileen squirms. "Well, it's just sort of...distasteful. Isn't it?" "Is it? Why?" "Well, for starters, she's not human. And also she's...well, tiny." "This is a novel that gave us not one, but *two* half-giant characters," Elkins reminds her. "And from Fudge's comment about them not all turning out like Hagrid, it would seem that it's not all that an uncommon pairing in the wizarding world, either. I don't get the impression that wizards are too particular about species. Or about *size,* for that matter." "I just don't know if I think that it would occur to people in the culture to view the elves as objects of lust," says Eileen. "They're...well, they're really rather disgusting and freakish, aren't they?" "Harry thinks that they are, but he's not used to them. I don't know if I think that the elves would seem at all freakish or disgusting to someone who was actually a member of one of those fine old pure- blooded families. I mean, you have to figure, don't you, that the elves probably fill the Nanny role in those households? If you'd been raised in one of those famlies, then the elves probably would have been the people who actually took care of you when you were an infant. They're the ones who would have watched over you as a young child; they're the ones who would have cooked your food, and quite likely served it to you as well. Food is important. They'd be your first source of material comfort, your first physical providers. They'd be your very first objects of love, most likely. You'd be used to them: the way they look, the way they sound, the way they..." "Elkins," says Eileen. "This is--" "It's not disgusting. It's *normal.* It would be normal for people who grew up in those households to view the elves as objects of erotic desire. Maybe not appropriate ones. But certainly *appealing* ones." Elkins hesitates. She winces. "Oh, this is bringing us to *such* a Bad Place, Eileen," she says. "You know that, right?" "So don't look," suggests Eileen. "Just put the palantir away." "I can't. Look, let's just come clean here, shall we? We both *know* why Crouch/Winky is so disturbing, don't we? We know why it's scary to talk about. We know why it's a sensitive topic. And it doesn't really have anything to do with species. Or about size, for that matter." Eileen looks deeply troubled. "We are going to get in so much trouble just *talking* about this," she says. "I know. I know we are. But someone has to say it sooner or later. The main reason that Crouch/Winky is a disturbing concept is because she is his *slave.* And that's also what makes it so very convincing. Because...well, there's an awful lot of real life precedent, isn't there? And we already know that Crouch didn't scruple at somewhat, errr...coercive relationships with subordinate members of his household." Eileen looks away. "I don't like house elves as slaves," she says evasively. "I prefer Pippin's reading of house elves as housewives." "Right. No sexual undertones there, are there? And no implications of borderline consensuality, either." Elkins smiles. "I like house elves as housewives too, actually," she admits. "But I don't think that it's what makes Crouch/Winky such an upsetting concept. And it *is* an upsetting concept, isn't it? I mean, even when you weren't proposing a sexual relationship, you *still* called it 'nasty and twisted' in your subject heading. Well, why? Why is even the implication so nasty? Why is it twisted? Why is it so upsetting? It's because we're not entirely sure how free the elves really are, isn't it? And because without knowing that, we can't evaluate to what extent we should consider such a relationship rapacious. We don't know exactly what rights of refusal she might have had. That's what makes it so troubling." "Winky seems to genuinely care about Crouch," Eileen points out. "Yes. She does. Well, there's plenty of real life precedent for that too, isn't there? I don't know if that signifies. People play the hands they're dealt, and all things considered, it's far better to love than to hate. In fact," says Elkins. "Crouch/Winky sort of replicates the troubling ambiguity of the entire SPEW plotline, doesn't it? She clearly really loved him. But did she have a choice? To what extent to the elves *really* like to serve?" Elkins takes a deep breath. "And that's precisely why I believe in this ship," she says. "Not only because it's so strongly suggested by the characters' actions, but also because it just dovetails far too neatly with all of the other thematic foci of the Crouch family subplots for me not to believe that adult readers, at any rate, are meant to read a sexual relationship here." Eileen stares at her. "You think this ship is authorial *intent?*" she asks. "You're serious?" "Yes, I am. Dead serious. By the time she was writing GoF, the author knew that she had a large adult audience, as well as a young readership. I think Crouch/Winky is intentional, and that it's just glossed for younger readers. Of course, there's no way to know for sure. Especially since if I were JKR, I'd deny it if anyone asked me about it." "Because of the Bad Place?" "Well, yeah. And also because the woman has enough problems as it is with all those Satanism accusations without having to worry about what people might think about her sticking sexual relationships of dubious consensuality into her kids' books. But at any rate, whether it's intentional or not, it just makes sense to me. See, as I see it, the Crouch family plotline is connected very strongly to certain types of things. The House Elf subplot. The Imperius Curse. Fanaticism. Devotion. Misplaced loyaties. They're things that seem to me to tie into that closing contrast between what is right and what is easy. They're all areas of the story that highlight the difficulties of knowing what is truly your own volition and what is not. The house elves enjoy servitude, so are they really slaves? The Imperius Curse doesn't feel bad; it feels *good,* it makes you *want* to obey its dictates. Crouch's son cites as his deepest desire the desire to serve, to prove himself worthy to his substitute father figure. Both Percy and Winky grant Crouch more loyalty than he probably merits; Mrs. Crouch and Winky also give that same sort of loyalty to his son. Was it admirable of them to do that, or was it misguided? Was it a little bit of both?" "I would have thought you'd call it misguided," says Eileen, smiling slightly. "Given your feelings about Crouch." "I probably should," admits Elkins. "But I admire loyalty. I've a terrible soft spot for misguided loyalty. And I'm really awfully fond of Percy, you know. But at any rate, to my mind all of these issues are strongly conceptually linked. The Crouch family subplot seems to me to address questions of borderline volition. If you believe yourself to want to serve, then can you truly be said to be under coercion at all? Where does choice end? Where does brainwashing begin?" Elkins looks both ways. She bites her lip, then takes another deep breath. "There are questions of sexuality and gender relations that tie closely into that issue," she says quietly. "But they're really rather adult, and perhaps not altogether appropriate for younger readers." Eileen opens her mouth. "I don't mean adult in the pornographic sense," amends Elkins quickly. "I don't mean that at *all.* I just mean adult in the...well, in the *grown-up* sense. Sexual relationships, even the most healthy and egalitarian ones, always touch just a little bit on the borderlands of volition. They're not really freely chosen in quite the same way as platonic relationships are. But that's a *very* delicate subject, and it's not something that children really understand. They can't. They don't have the life experiences yet to understand it. Adults do, though, and I think that Crouch/Winky is written into the text in such a way as to provide it as another example of borderline consensuality for the book's adult readers, while still glossing it sufficiently to keep the book appropriate for children. It's there to provide another example of an area of life in which the boundary line between coercion and volition can often become hazy, blurred, indistinct. "Besides," adds Elkins, after a short pause. "You don't want to talk me out of this ship, you know, Eileen. You really don't." "Why on earth not?" asks Eileen. "Because it makes me like Crouch better." "Elkins! Why? It makes his treatment of Winky all the more abysmal!" "Does it? Oh, I don't know. Maybe it does. But it also makes it somehow more forgivable. People get weird when it comes to their lovers. Crouch/Winky actually humanizes Crouch a great deal for me. It makes him seem less like a thematic icon, and more like a real person. It makes me find him a lot more sympathetic. Although his poor son..." Elkins laughs and shakes her head. "Well!" she says. "And that's another very compelling bit of evidence for Crouch/Winky right there." "His son?" "Yes. Do you remember a while back, when you were talking about Winky taking over Mrs. Crouch's function in both the text and the family dynamic? You said: > In her relationship with Barty Jr., Winky also seems to be like > Mrs. Crouch. Eileen nods. "Yes," she says. "She's just like his mother, really. She loves him and wants to let him off the hook, believes the best of him, even though she knows he wants to serve Voldemort." "Well, yes. That's true. But is it really the same relationship? Is it the same relationship on *his* end? Crouch Jr. seems to have idolized his mother, or at the very least to have romanticized her a great deal after her death. But how did he feel about Winky? Are there any indications that he felt even the slightest bit of affection for her?" Eileen thinks this over for a moment. "Well, it's hard to tell," she says. "We never really see them interacting." "No. We never do, do we? Which is particularly interesting, don't you think, given that she was actually present for the entirety of his confession? And hardly a silent witness, either. She makes quite a nuisance of herself, really. She literally throws herself on top of him when she thinks that he's been killed. She's utterly distraught. She sobs, she wails, she interrupts, she pleads. And he never even acknowledges her presence. Not once. He digresses all over the place in the course of his interrogation, but he never addresses a single word to her. Not even indirectly. I can think of two reasons why that might have been the case. The first is--" "Veritaserum," Eileen says. Elkins nods. "Yes. Dumbledore starts out his interrogation by asking, 'Can you hear me?' That could be more than a formality. It's possible that the stuff focusses your attention on one interrogator and one interrogator only." "The first person who addresses you," suggests Eileen. "Or maybe the first person who asks you a direct question once you're under its influence." "Could be. If so, then maybe he honestly couldn't even hear anyone else. He may not have been aware of Winky's presence. Or perhaps he couldn't really digress in that particular manner. But there's another possibility too." "That he was ignoring her on purpose." "Yes. And you know, I'm sorry to say that I really do think it's the latter? I see not a trace of affection in how Crouch Jr. speaks of Winky, and a good deal that could be indicative of a tremendous degree of hostility. If you ask me, I'd say that he hated her. For ten years, she was his only companion, yet he doesn't even refer to her by name at first. He refers to her as 'the house-elf.'" "That's just how wizards talk about elves." "I think it's more than that. He refers to her as his 'keeper and care-taker.' He never once states that she treated him with kindness, or with compassion. Instead, he says that she 'pitied' him. He refers to whatever privileges she managed to get for him by negotiating with his father on his behalf as 'treats.' He has not a single nice thing to say about her. He exploited her weakness at the QWC, and he seems almost *proud* of himself for having done so. He shows no signs of sympathy or regret when he talks about his father sacking her. In fact, I think you can almost read a trace of a gloat in that 'she had failed him' comment. That's not the phrasing you'd choose to discuss someone you viewed as a mother, is it? It's the way you'd talk about a villain's lacky getting thrown into the crocodile pit for having failed to conduct some wicked plan successfully." Elkins smiles lazily. "In fact," she says. "It's very much like the way you might describe...oh, let's just say an Evil Overlord feeding his snivelling minion to a giant snake for having failed him in some very important task. Isn't it?" "That's really a very unkind parallel, Elkins," Eileen tells her reprovingly. "On a number of different levels." "You think?" Elkins shrugs. "Take it up with the author," she says. "I just call 'em as I see 'em. And what I'm seeing is that while Winky is in many ways marked as Crouch Jr's mother, both textually and in terms of her relationship with Crouch Sr, he *himself* does not seem to have perceived their relationship that way at all. He seems, in fact, to have resented her a great deal. He doesn't even really credit her with persuading his father to allow him to go to the QWC, does he? Not really. He credits his *mother's memory,* just like he gives his mother all the credit for rescuing him from prison. It's very much the same thing, really. 'My father didn't save my life; my *mother* did.' 'Winky didn't persuade my father; my *mother's memory* did.'" Elkins rolls her eyes. "Barty Junior and his sainted mother." "That Mrs. Crouch *really* gets on my nerves," growls Eileen. "Yes. You know, she's really beginning to get on mine too? But her son seems to have idolized her. And he also seems to have despised Winky. It is rather suggestive, that, Eileen. You have to admit it. And there's something else, you know. One final reason for thinking that perhaps Crouch Sr. wasn't the model of fidelity to his late wife's memory -- or indeed, that perhaps he had *never* been much of a model of marital fidelity." "More slander, Elkins?" "Slander? Eileen, you wound me. I am merely trying to look at the family dynamics here. Now, we all seem to agree that whatever else he might have been, Crouch the Elder was a bit of a tyrant when it came to his familial relations. You would think that he must have seemed like rather an ogre to his son, wouldn't you? He sent him off to Azkaban. He bellowed abuse at him while he was pleading for mercy. He held his life in his very hands. He controlled him. He dominated him. He bent him to his will. 'Total control.' And really, Crouch Sr. was a quite impressive man in his day, wasn't he? Forceful. Charismatic. Magnetic. Domineering. He's still rather a striking personality even by the time of canon, when he's become a lame duck. CRAB CUSTARD, you know." "Yes." "And his son truly hated him. I think we can agree on that point too. But what does Barty Jr. actually give as his reasoning for hating his father so much? What does he tell Harry? That his father was a bloody tyrant? That his father was a monster? That his father was Ever So Evil?" Elkins shakes her head. "No," she says. "What he says instead is that his father was *disappointing.* Now, why do you think that he would have chosen that particular word?" "Well..." Eileen thinks about it. "The *author* probably chose that particular word," she says. "Because it hearkens back to Voldemort in the graveyard." "It does do that. Voldemort is 'disappointed' in his Death Eaters. Because they've been *unfaithful,* isn't it? What is the significance of the fact that Crouch Jr. uses that very same word to describe his father?" "Oh, well." Eileen shrugs. "I think that could be just...well, you know. Villain talk. Or perhaps referring to the...well..." She squirms uncomfortably. "The 'H Word' thing." "The 'H Word.'" Elkins smiles. "How many arenas of Crouch's life do you think that word applied to? He was a political hypocrite, certainly. Did that tendency translate into his personal life, do you think? Winky talks about her mother serving the family before her, and her grandmother before that. Did Crouch ever keep any *male* servants? Was he *ever* maritally faithful? Isn't 'disappointing' rather a stereotypical word for an aristocratic young man to use to refer to a father who...well, you know. Who cheats on his wife? Who does the *help?*" "You are a very sick woman, Elkins." "Crouch Jr's treatment of his father's body suggests to my mind that to some extent he felt that he was avenging his mother," says Elkins. "The third task guardian is a *sphinx.* The entire family dynamic seems awfully suggestive to me of some pretty serious Oedipal issues. And I have to say that when I look at a family dynamic in which a son adores his rather sickly mother, absolutely detests his father, seems to loathe his father's female servant in spite of the fact that she has been kind to him, *and* refers to his father as 'disappointing...' Well, it just gets difficult for me to avoid the suspicion that there are more than political differences underlying the conflict there." "You are just plain disturbed," Eileen says flatly. "That's all there is to this." Elkins laughs. "Okay, okay," she says. "Suit yourself. You don't have to board the Crouch/Winky ship if you don't want to. I think it's there, but hey. To each his own. Right? And really, you know, it's not the idea of the ship that I find so disturbing about Winky's role in the Crouch family dynamic at all. I actually find that rather sympathetic, for all parties concerned. It's very human, and it's also really rather sad. No, the thing that I find disturbing about Winky is what I feel that her role conveys about the maternal role in the series as a whole. Or even about the role of *women* in the series as a whole." "Oh, Elkins!" exclaims Eileen, looking frightened. "You really *are* determined to get us in trouble here, aren't you?" "Looks that way," admits Elkins. "You didn't bring any asbestos suits with you today, did you, Eileen?" Eileen shakes her head. "No," she says. "And if I had, I certainly wouldn't share with you! Not after that evil political attack back in part four. And not after you knocked over my CRAB CUSTARD table and tried to *throttle* me. When the flamethrowers come out, I'm just going to duck and cover. You can do what you please. But now that you've raised the issue, you might as well get on with it." "Okay," says Elkins. "Well, I can't help but feel, you know, that Crouch Jr's respective attitudes towards his mother and Winky reflect to some extent the biases of the authorial voice itself." "You're going to die for this," Eileen advises her gravely. "You *know* that." "Yes, I know. But it has to be said. Really, when you think about it, Winky was every bit as much Barty Jr's mother as Mrs. Crouch was, wasn't she? I mean, can you really imagine Lady of the Manor Crouch changing her son's diapers? I somehow suspect that's house elf work. Along with all of the other gross, tedious and unpleasant chores of child-rearing. This gets into Pippin's preferred reading of the house elves as housewives. The person who actually fulfilled that aspect of the maternal function in Barty Jr's life was probably *always* Winky. Or perhaps Winky's mother, depending on how the house elf generations work. That's how it works, surely? The elves do the dirty work?" "I would imagine so." "And then that the entire dynamic is just replicated when it comes to post-Azkaban Barty. Once again, Mrs. Crouch left all the maternal dirty work for her elf. She up and died, and left Winky to take care of the mess that she'd left behind. *She* wasn't the one who got stuck looking after her crazed son all the time, and neither was her husband. That was Winky's job. Not an enviable task. Especially since I somehow doubt she was ever consulted about the wisdom of breaking him free from Azkaban in the first place." "It doesn't seem quite fair, does it?" admits Eileen. "No. It really doesn't. And really, when you think about it, in many ways Winky sacrificed far more for Barty Jr. than his sainted mother ever did." "Well," says Eileen. "His mother did die in Azkaban for him." "Yes," sighs Elkins. "She did. And I'm not saying that wasn't a sacrifice, or that it wasn't a rather brave thing for her to have done. It must have been just awful. I don't know if I would have been willing to do it. But at the same time...well, not to sound brutal here or anything, but the woman was dying *anyway,* wasn't she? She redeemed her son's life with a week or two of absolute misery, and I'm not saying that was nothing. But it didn't really last all that long, did it? And it wasn't...oh, I don't know quite how to explain this. It wasn't actually *work.* It wasn't active. It involved suffering, but only of a rather passive nature. It didn't represent a commitment of *labor.* It wasn't hard; it was merely unpleasant. Am I making the slightest bit of sense here?" "Some." "I guess that I just think that in the long run, it's a lot harder, and in some ways a lot braver, to *live* for someone than to die for them. What Winky gave to Barty Jr. was ten entire *years* of her life, and not of her own volition, either. And it was *active* sacrifice. It was hard work. She had to watch over him constantly. It became her job. To some extent, it became the poor creature's existence. I can't imagine that it was a walk in the park, being Barty Jr's jailer, can you? Especially since he seems to have hated her." Eileen mutters something about ingratitude. "Well, really," says Elkins. "Even assuming no 'ship, I don't think that I can blame him for that. After all, why *should* he have felt gratitude to Winky? She had nothing to do with saving his life, and no matter how nice she may have tried to be to him, she was still his jailer. She professed affection for him, and she tried to make his situation more bearable, but when push came to shove, she wasn't really on his side at all. She was his father's creature. She was his father's servant, his father's minion, his father's enforcer. She served as the agent of his bondage, and she carried out his father's edicts even when she didn't herself agree with them. If I'd been Crouch Jr., I think that I would have felt some contempt for her too. I mean, from his rather adolescent point of view, she's just his father in a skirt, isn't she? Just another two-faced liar. Just another hypocrite." "She didn't have a choice, though," points out Eileen. "No. She didn't have a choice. But you know, it's a lot easier to sympathize with the plight of people who are 'just obeying orders' when their orders don't happen to concern *you.* You *know* how freely my heart always bleeds for minions, but I suspect that I might find that flow starting to slow to a trickle if I were actually the person *subject* to the orders that they had no choice but to obey. "Crouch Sr. seems to have felt that Winky was insufficiently loyal to him over his son," continues Elkins. "But Crouch Jr. surely would have felt just the reverse -- and with far more cause, really. I can't blame him for not liking her much. But the fact that Winky herself does seem to have felt rather ambivalent about the entire situation just makes it a greater sacrifice, doesn't it? Mrs. Crouch got herself well out of that entire twisted Oedipal triangle, and she left *that* behind for Winky to deal with as well. She left Winky trapped in an absolutely untenable position, both emotionally and morally. She seems to have genuinely cared about young Crouch. She pitied him, yet she couldn't really help him in any way that had any real significance. She loved him, yet she was put in the position of being his jailer and his overseer. She had to enforce his father's will upon him whether she personally approved of his decisions or not. It put her in an awful position, always trying to walk the line, trying to look out for his interests and his father's simultaneously..." "She fell off that line at the QWC," says Eileen coldly. "Man! You really just can't forgive her for the QWC, can you? Yes, I suppose she did fall off that line eventually. But then, it was an impossible line to walk in the first place. And in the end, it utterly destroyed her, didn't it? She's a shattered wreck by the end of the novel. An alcoholic mess." "So what does this say about the maternal role in the books?" asks Eileen. "Well, how do you think that we're supposed to read Mrs. Crouch's sacrifice? My feeling is that it's portrayed as rather noble. Perhaps wrong-headed, in that Crouch Jr. really was a Death Eater, but wrong-headed in a manner that I think that we're supposed to read in a fairly sympathetic light. Her one on-screen appearance is rather cartoonish, but I think that we're expected to imagine whatever off-screen suffering her sacrifice entailed as happening in a heroic idiom. She languishes romantically away in prison, and I think that that's set forth in a more or less tragic light." "I suppose so." "Well, how about the suffering that Winky accrues from her sacrifices? Is it portrayed as noble? Is it portrayed as in any sense tragic? Is it set forth in a heroic idiom?" "Errr...no," says Eileen. "I wouldn't quite call it that." "No. It's totally pathetic, isn't it? Grotesque. To a large extent, her suffering is played for laughs. We're meant to understand that she really is in pain, but at the same time, the actual portrayal is...well, it's Toonish, really. She's utterly revolting. Her nose runs. She throws tantrums like a child, throwing herself down onto the floor and beating her fists against the flagstones and howling. She's filthy. She turns to drink, and she's a rather comedic drunk, too: she hiccups, she dribbles all over herself, her eyes cross, she passes out in a stupor and immediately starts snoring. The other elves wrap her up in a tablecloth. I mean, we're not exactly looking at what I'd call a tragic portrayal of anguish here. The authorial voice accords her very little dignity at all." "Well, except for maybe in the last scene," points out Eileen. "When she's playing the Greek Chorus in the great mad scene of 'The Fall of the House of Crouch,' you mean?" Elkins grins. "Maybe. But even there, there are still strong elements of humor and grotesquerie to her portrayal. All that, 'Oh, Barty, you bad boy" stuff. Overall, I'd say that the authorial voice treats her with a good deal of contempt. And of course, her loyalty is *misguided,* isn't it? She's guilty of having thrown good loyalty after bad. It's portrayed as a failing, wouldn't you say?" "Absolutely," says Eileen, with conviction. "Well, what about Mrs. Crouch's loyalty? Winky is no less guilty of misapplied devotion than Mrs. Crouch is, really, but are we encouraged to read them as equally culpable? I don't know if I think that we are. It seems to me that when it comes to Mrs. Crouch, there's an implication that her actions are more forgivable because she was his mother. At the very least, they get a somewhat noble portrayal. But Winky is also marked as his mother, isn't she? She's just the maternal aspect who does all the *dirty* work. Yet her suffering is grotesque, and her misplaced loyalties, I think, really very strongly condemned by the narrative." "There are some troubling gender implications there," agrees Eileen. "Aren't there." "There really are. And it's not helped by the fact that the series is just stuffed to *bursting* with all of these remote, idealized, nameless, tragic martyr mothers. Sickly Lady of the Manor Crouch. The nameless Mrs. Longbottom, who is not an Auror but merely an Auror's *wife,* and who therefore can serve as an absolute sacrificial lamb in a way that her husband cannot. Tom Riddle's nameless mother, who dies in childbirth. And of course, Lily Potter, who at least gets a name, but who has to date been given precious little else. She has no backstory, no personality, and no particular character, except that she seems to have been perfect." "'Lily Was Nice.' But that may change." "Let's hope so! Right now, though, that's all we've got on her. No friends, no cool legacy items left behind for Harry to play with, no backstory, nothing. We just know that she was pretty and smart, and good with Charms. And that she died for her son. So we have all of these idealized distant martyr mothers, and they seem to stand in a kind of contrast to *real* mothers. You know, the people who actually do 'women's work.' The ones who get down in the trenches of the actual day-to-day dirty work of mothering, whose sacrifices entail *living* for their children, rather than just dying for them. *That* role," says Elkins. "Is filled by the house elves. Who are grotesque and faintly ludicrous. "And that really does bother me. The implication seems to be..." "That the only good mother is a dead mother?" suggests Eileen, smiling. "Well...yes. It does feel that way to me at times. Or even worse: the only good mother is one who doesn't sully her hands with icky feminine stuff. 'Women's work.' It seems to divorce the idealized aspect of the maternal role from the physical and material aspect in a way that strikes me as somewhat misogynist, really. It seems to me to fit in somehow with the contempt that the narrative so often shows towards other stereotypically feminine interests or endeavors: those silly giggling Gryffindor girls, you know, or Lockhart and his appeal to women, or the role of Divination, or those trashy women's magazines. I mean, what does all of that say about *women?*" There is a long silence. "What about Molly Weasley?" asks Eileen. "Molly?" Elkins thinks, then nods. "Yes, okay. She's a bit flawed, and in some pretty stereotypical ways -- the Lockhart crush, the women's magazines. But I think that she's portrayed as admirable." There is another long silence. "So thank heavens for Molly Weasley," says Elkins drily. "Molly won't be enough to protect you from the flames," advises Eileen gravely. Elkins sighs. "I know," she says. "Maybe I should have just stuck with politics. Or...hey, I know! Want to talk about the Twins?" ********** Elkins who cut her teeth on works of fiction that portrayed 'women's work' with a certain degree of contempt, and who now, as an adult with no children and a rather marked (some might even say pathological) aversion to domestic activities, often finds herself wondering to what extent she might suffer from a bad case of internalized misogyny -- and if so, then just where that *came* from, anyway. ********************************************************************* From h_potter_uk at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 8 19:47:30 2002 From: h_potter_uk at yahoo.co.uk (h_potter_uk ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:47:30 -0000 Subject: Could Quidditch really work? In-Reply-To: <3DF3916D.27862.18926C@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47967 Hello everyone, I've been lurking for a while, and I've been following the Quidditch posts quite a bit. I can kind of see where everyone's going with the points, but I've got a question about physically playing the game. How can Quidditch players stay on their broomsticks? Your standard broomstick is kind of small, so how do these players zoom around at top speed and stay on. I know, I know - magic. But, even a horseback rider like myself knows, your seat neads more than a one inch stick under it. A broken tree in a saddle can be painful. Even though you're on top of a horse, it's quite precarious sitting on top of a saddle that's not quite stable (excuse the pun). In _Quidditch Through the Ages_, there's mention (on pg. 47-48) of a cushioning charm. Is this standard on all brooms now? And I'm also wondering about Quiddtich players techniques. Do they lock their legs under the broom in order to stay on? Furthermore, how can you steer a broom with one hand, catch a Quaffle or a Snitch, or swing a beater's bat at a Bludger, or guard a goal post with just one hand (or no hands) on a broom and keep it steering correctly and keep balanced? I don't really want my first post on this board to sound pessimistic. If there really was a game of Quiddtich, I'd certainly be one of the first to try and sign up for it. I guess Muggle physics just aren't cut out for Wizard technicalities :) -Yours in Gryffindor, Heloise Wesley "'HARRY, THIS IS NO TIME TO BE A GENTLEMAN!' Wood roared, as Harry swerved to avoid a collision. 'KNOCK HER OFF HER BROOM IF YOU HAVE TO!'" - _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_ pg 193 From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 23:08:05 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:08:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Couples in the Potterverse Message-ID: <20021208230805.55616.qmail@web40301.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47968 From: "Diane " Subject: Re: Couples in the Potterverse << Shipping is a pretty pointless exercise - it can lead to so much ill feeling. Everybody has their own ideas and the fact is we have to wait and see. I am inclined to agree that all romances (never dating in English) will be very light. >>> Hello, Diane! JKR has said in an interview that the romances will be light and humorous, like you have said: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/Sum1999_Renton_SydneyMorningHerald.htm "The story behind the Potter legend" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really, CSLewis had very different objectives to mine. When I write, I don't intend to make a point or teach philosophy of life. A problem you run into with a series is how the characters grow up ... whether they're allowed to grow up. The characters in Enid Blyton's Famous Five books act in a prepubescent way right through the series. In the Narnia books the children are never allowed to grow up, even though they are growing older. *****I want Harry Potter and his friends to grow up as well as older, though I'll keep it all humorous, well within the tone of the books. I want them eventually to be truly 17 and discover girlfriends and boyfriends and have sexual feelings - nothing too gritty. Why not allow them to have those feelings?****** (emphasis mine) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nothing too gritty? Sounds good to me! ~Lilac, who personally thinks love triangles sound far too gritty for the tone of these books... ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Professor, can you show me that blocking thing again?" Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry!" "What, drop my wand?" --Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sun Dec 8 23:36:40 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:36:40 -0000 Subject: Wizard fertility (Re: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47969 chthonia9 wrote: It appears that in their youth, (up to their 30s - Sirius, Snape etc), wizards age similarly to Muggles." Actually, it's been discussed, a long time ago, that the reason why Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter look older than they really are, is because in their short lives, they have been through so much stress and tragedy and grief. Just look at Lupin. It's noted that he's a young-looking man, but his hair is grey. That's atrributed to the strain on his health when he transforms, but he has also lost all of his friends and left completely alone. Peter has spent the last 13 years in fear, and hiding as a rat. That explains everything. Sirius has spent the last 13 years in Azkaban, living his worst nightmares over and over, knowing that he was indirectly responsible for his best friends' death. Snape was a DE and probably relives his experiences in nightmares, and he's stuck in a job he hates. He's seen a lot of action, and is probably a little scared that V-Mort will catch up to him and kill him. These four are really the only adults we know of in their mid- 30s...unless I'm missing someone. "Given the small size of the school compared to the (assumed) size of the wizard population, presumably witches do bear more children than their muggle counterparts, over a longer period? But wizard children can start their own families after a relatively short period." Well, the Potters went and had a baby about 2 or 3 years after Hogwarts, so they do start their families quick. However, the families we have seen pretty much only have one child. I think all the boys in Harry's year, with the exception of Ron, are only children. Draco and Friends appear to all be only children. "So why do we hear so little about great-great-grandparents? The extended family dynamics must be fiendishly complex..." Well, I think we hear something of Ron's family and how big they are. Neville's family is quite large. But, yes, determinng who your great-great aunt, twice removed is must be interesting. I have a somewhat smaller family, and I still have to ask "who's that" after someone comes up to me and tells me that the last time they saw me I was "this" tall. Imagine if my relatives lived to be 200 years old... From the.gremlin at verizon.net Mon Dec 9 00:16:58 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:16:58 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Porphyria Ashenden " wrote: > I wrote: > > > ...infatuation with literary characters has *nothing to > > do* with sexual attraction in its simplest sense. These characters > > have no physical presence...They are only as attractive as we > > imagine them. Our impression of them is rooted purely in language, > > which means it is symbolic and analyzable. > > Acire responded: > > > I disagree with this, because we can be affected by the way a > > certain character is described. Snape's voice is often described > > as "silky", he is always wearing black, sweeping in and out of > > rooms, talking in a "soft, dangerous" voice, and looking through > his > > curtain of black, and sometimes greasy, hair. All these > > characteristics have a mysterious tone about them. While he isn't > > physically attractive, his mannerisms are somewhat seductive in > that > > tall dark stranger sort of way. > > Of course you're right; I agree that the physical description of a > character affects how we feel about them. I would just add that we > can, in turn, consider why certain physical aspects appeal to some of > us and not other. For instance you (and me) find silky, soft, > dangerous voices and flowing black robes appealing. Other readers > couldn't care less. So the "mysterious" aspect might or might not be > considered "seductive," depending on what a person finds seductive. > I'm only trying to make the point that we, as readers, glom onto > certain aspects of these characters because they are meaningful to > us, and yes this does include physical descriptions as well as the > other stuff I pointed out. But I wouldn't say it was "sexual > attraction in its simplest sense," because it requires a lot of > imagination to pull off; it's not just an instinct. > > Actually, my premise is wrong, since human sexual attraction is > *never* simple. :-) But I just get annoyed sometimes at the > accusation that Snape's fans only defend him because they have a > crush on him, as if a crush were somehow not connected to the > complicated depiction of a character and our imaginative and symbolic > relationship with it, our own value system, etc. (Note: GulPlum > didn't say this; I'm thinking of others who shall remain nameless.) > > I also agree with Acire's other points about the appeal of Snape's > dangerous past (kept in check since he recanted) , his bravery, and > most of all the fact that we, as readers, can fill in a lot of blanks > about his past as we see fit. :-) That point can't be stressed > enough, since it drives so much mental effort in interpretation. I > think I'd just add that the appeal of his semi-dangerousness is one > of those things that has to be explained since not all women go for > that. And again, I'd say it's because we fans identify with it a > little; we can vicariously have fun with it without necessarily being > dangerous ourselves or associating with people who are. > > Acire again: > > The one thing that just bothers me about your theory is that it > > makes Snape sound a little feminine...well, indirectly feminine. > But > > I really do like your theory. > > Interestingly, the reason I came up with this theory is that I was > pondering the fact that 1) Snape is the product of a female author > and 2) Snape's fans are overwhelmingly female. So I wondered if JKR > put some of her dark side into Snape and how this was registering > with female readers. > > Of course what I tried to stress in saying that Snape is a cast- off > animus (for you Jungians out there) is that he's exactly what women > don't get to be. Snape isn't effeminate at all; he's tough, > aggressive, competitive, hardnosed, unforgiving, exacting, etc. > > But on the other hand, there are some feminine (or yin) aspects to > Snape's depiction, aren't there? For one thing, I find it intriguing > that his craft is the one most often associated with (female) > witches; brewing in a cauldron, as opposed to the traditional > depiction of wizards with their really big staffs. In fact, he > disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic > obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with > their more sneaky, devious ways (and feminine symbolism). Here I'm > sort of smooshing together western "feminine" with "yin" which is > also dark, negative, the color black, the night, etc. Still, I'm > reminded of a remark of sydpad's from post #43029 where we were also > discussing Snape and wands vs. cauldrons: > > > 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... > > I think sydpad was onto something and that's the kind of point I'm > trying to make. I think Snape has a few covert feminine attributes > along with his obvious male ones. In fact, I'd be tempted to add a > 'soft, silky' voice, skinniness, long hair and flowing robes to the > list of feminine attributes, but I realize those might not strike > every person or culture as feminine (to my mind they do). Of course > nothing is entirely yin or yang... > > > -Acire, who finds Sherlock Holmes (a mysogonist, for anyone who > > doesn't know) appealing in the same way she finds Snape appealing. > > Me too. ;-) > ~Porphyria From the.gremlin at verizon.net Mon Dec 9 00:17:47 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:17:47 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Porphyria Ashenden " wrote: > I wrote: > > > ...infatuation with literary characters has *nothing to > > do* with sexual attraction in its simplest sense. These characters > > have no physical presence...They are only as attractive as we > > imagine them. Our impression of them is rooted purely in language, > > which means it is symbolic and analyzable. > > Acire responded: > > > I disagree with this, because we can be affected by the way a > > certain character is described. Snape's voice is often described > > as "silky", he is always wearing black, sweeping in and out of > > rooms, talking in a "soft, dangerous" voice, and looking through > his > > curtain of black, and sometimes greasy, hair. All these > > characteristics have a mysterious tone about them. While he isn't > > physically attractive, his mannerisms are somewhat seductive in > that > > tall dark stranger sort of way. > > Of course you're right; I agree that the physical description of a > character affects how we feel about them. I would just add that we > can, in turn, consider why certain physical aspects appeal to some of > us and not other. For instance you (and me) find silky, soft, > dangerous voices and flowing black robes appealing. Other readers > couldn't care less. So the "mysterious" aspect might or might not be > considered "seductive," depending on what a person finds seductive. > I'm only trying to make the point that we, as readers, glom onto > certain aspects of these characters because they are meaningful to > us, and yes this does include physical descriptions as well as the > other stuff I pointed out. But I wouldn't say it was "sexual > attraction in its simplest sense," because it requires a lot of > imagination to pull off; it's not just an instinct. > > Actually, my premise is wrong, since human sexual attraction is > *never* simple. :-) But I just get annoyed sometimes at the > accusation that Snape's fans only defend him because they have a > crush on him, as if a crush were somehow not connected to the > complicated depiction of a character and our imaginative and symbolic > relationship with it, our own value system, etc. (Note: GulPlum > didn't say this; I'm thinking of others who shall remain nameless.) > > I also agree with Acire's other points about the appeal of Snape's > dangerous past (kept in check since he recanted) , his bravery, and > most of all the fact that we, as readers, can fill in a lot of blanks > about his past as we see fit. :-) That point can't be stressed > enough, since it drives so much mental effort in interpretation. I > think I'd just add that the appeal of his semi-dangerousness is one > of those things that has to be explained since not all women go for > that. And again, I'd say it's because we fans identify with it a > little; we can vicariously have fun with it without necessarily being > dangerous ourselves or associating with people who are. > > Acire again: > > The one thing that just bothers me about your theory is that it > > makes Snape sound a little feminine...well, indirectly feminine. > But > > I really do like your theory. > > Interestingly, the reason I came up with this theory is that I was > pondering the fact that 1) Snape is the product of a female author > and 2) Snape's fans are overwhelmingly female. So I wondered if JKR > put some of her dark side into Snape and how this was registering > with female readers. > > Of course what I tried to stress in saying that Snape is a cast- off > animus (for you Jungians out there) is that he's exactly what women > don't get to be. Snape isn't effeminate at all; he's tough, > aggressive, competitive, hardnosed, unforgiving, exacting, etc. > > But on the other hand, there are some feminine (or yin) aspects to > Snape's depiction, aren't there? For one thing, I find it intriguing > that his craft is the one most often associated with (female) > witches; brewing in a cauldron, as opposed to the traditional > depiction of wizards with their really big staffs. In fact, he > disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic > obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with > their more sneaky, devious ways (and feminine symbolism). Here I'm > sort of smooshing together western "feminine" with "yin" which is > also dark, negative, the color black, the night, etc. Still, I'm > reminded of a remark of sydpad's from post #43029 where we were also > discussing Snape and wands vs. cauldrons: > > > 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... > > I think sydpad was onto something and that's the kind of point I'm > trying to make. I think Snape has a few covert feminine attributes > along with his obvious male ones. In fact, I'd be tempted to add a > 'soft, silky' voice, skinniness, long hair and flowing robes to the > list of feminine attributes, but I realize those might not strike > every person or culture as feminine (to my mind they do). Of course > nothing is entirely yin or yang... > > > -Acire, who finds Sherlock Holmes (a mysogonist, for anyone who > > doesn't know) appealing in the same way she finds Snape appealing. > > Me too. ;-) > ~Porphyria From promethian_death at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 22:38:35 2002 From: promethian_death at yahoo.com (Lady Promethia ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:38:35 -0000 Subject: Harry Is not Heir of Slytherin (Was: Harry's Relation to Voldemort) In-Reply-To: <20021204015453.54845.qmail@web14505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47972 Eloise said: I think the conclusion is that he is not *descended* from Slytherin. Lady Promethia's theory proposes that Voldmort is a relative by marriage, not blood (a step great uncle?) of Lily's, which I guess could be true. Promethia Says: This is not what my theory is about at all... what I am saying is that Voldamort is Lily's uncle, through blood, more than likly her mother's family, and her mother being Voldamort's younger *half*- sibbling. They would have thier father in comon, and two diffrent mothers. The end point being that there is a common relative, it's just not Voldamort's mother, whom, if I rember correctly is the one who was decendant from Slythering, Not Tom Riddle Sr. Sorry to the Mods that this is all in caps: *THIS IS NOT ANOTHER HARRY IS HEIR OF SLYTHERIN THEORY!* This theory has nothing to do with Herry being or not being decendant from Slytherin. It has everything to do whith what the big revalation about Lily *might* be ing the next book. What I put forward does not have anything to with trying to explain where Harry get's stuff such as his parsalmouth, and why he might look so much like Tom Marvolo Riddle, and is just a simple and possible reason that Voldamort might be inclined to spare Lily, but not her husband or son. Sorry that this response took so long in coming, but the mundane world kept me from my email for alomost a week. Sorry if I tread on anyones' toes... ~Promie From dragonettefish at yahoo.com Sun Dec 8 23:15:26 2002 From: dragonettefish at yahoo.com (Jessica ) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:15:26 -0000 Subject: TIME TURNER-CAN YOU GROW OLD? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47973 During POA Harry and Hermione go back into time to help Siruis and Buckbeak, correct? A brief review: When using the time turner you twist it as far as you need to go back then there are two of you at once. As time goes on you reach the time you went back in time. Then there are only one of you. I think that is how the time turner works. If so, please consider these theories. If you went back say 40 years would you have to wait 40 years until you reached the correct time of when you went back in time? Also, can you grow old and die while you are using the time turner or is your age frozen? That would look really odd if one second you were 10 and the next 40 because you had been in the past so long, but that is what it would look like to someone going through normal time. Thanks! KuhKuh Lynn From dorigen at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 00:04:21 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:04:21 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard fertility (Re: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47974 >Well, the Potters went and had a baby about 2 or 3 years after >Hogwarts, so they do start their families quick. However, the >families we have seen pretty much only have one child. I think all >the boys in Harry's year, with the exception of Ron, are only >children. Draco and Friends appear to all be only children. I think the prevalence of only children in Harry's year may have to do with the Voldemort Wars. Harry's and Neville's parents were both casualties of that war; both families might well have had more children had they survived. Other wizarding families might have chosen not to have more "hostages to fortune" at around that time. Which may mean that while Harry's year (and older) may have more only children, more recent years (like the McCreeveys) would have more than one. (Also note that the Patil girls are twins, and therefore count as one birth although they're not technically "only children.") And it's my opinion that Draco's parents are, shall we say, not a very affectionate couple and once they had Draco as a son and heir they considered him sufficient. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 01:08:10 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 01:08:10 -0000 Subject: Bloodline, Class, House and moral choice (was: Potterverse Racism...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47975 I realise that some of this touches on issues raised in Shaalwyd's post 47885, but I wrote this before I read that, and couldn't think of an efficient way to answer directly...) In a couple of previous posts, I wrote: >Given that a major theme in the books is that >racism and prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this >somewhat contradicted by the ways character traits >seem to run in families in thePotterverse? >[snip] it seems that bloodlines do indeed have a >significance [snip] and Jim responded: > This is a large part of the point I was trying to > make in my posts under the "Classist Hogwarts" re line Thanks again Jim for the reference to this. Now that my friendly list- elf has given me some hints about how to use the search facility (ta muchly!) I've gone back and read that thread. Not quite what I was trying to get at, but interesting. Class...oh Merlin, lets not go there ? my head is starting to spin trying to differentiate the issues of class, race, bloodline, magical aptitude, intelligence, wealth, personality and character, all of which are distinct from one another IMO, and discussion of which is so difficult in our cross- cultural community to which we each bring along different definitions and cultural baggage. I've been trying to get my head round these different factors. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that: -Hogwarts is the only wizard school in the UK -Every magical child gets a place -No-one has to pay `at point of delivery' (*Never* is it mentioned in canon that there are fees, only that you have to buy your own supplies. The initial worry Harry had about money in PS/SS is based on his application of MW [Muggleworld] assumptions to the WW, and if there *were* fees I'm sure Draco would have taunted Ron about it by now) then this is how I see the various factors differing from each other, and how they impacts on life in the WW: -Class (using the UK sense of who your ancestors were and what they did) Not relevant in terms of Hogwarts admission Probably important wrt post-Hogwarts career, possibly (cf MW-UK) more in some fields than others -Race (ethnicity) Appears to be completely irrelevant, of itself, in and out of Hogwarts -Purity of bloodline (ie is one 100% wizard? This is a different issue to *class* IMO, because it cuts across social boundaries) Not relevant in terms of Hogwarts admission (providing magical aptitude is present) Crucial for career in upper echelons of Fudge's MoM. Unclear how important it is elsewhere ? clearly not as important as Mr Malfoy would like it to be. It is important to keep the above three distinct: WW purebloodedness does *not* equate to either class or race, so sociological comparisons of WW prejudice with that in the UK or US run the risk of going awry. -Magical Aptitude The one essential criterion that gets you in or keeps you out of Hogwarts - any at all and you're in Affects career post-Hogwarts in that what you're capable of will have an impact on what job you can take on -Intelligence (and diligence...) Not relevant to Hogwarts admission OWL and NEWT results affect post-Hogwarts career, but will not make up for lack of purebloodedness (and class?) in MoM hierarchy -Wealth Not relevant to Hogwarts admission Presumably affects post-Hogwarts career in similar way as in MW? Don't know enough about WW economics to guess at exact dynamic. -Personality (ie personal preferences and priorities as defined by the sorting hat ? I wouldn't correlate it to Myers-Briggs type analyses because clearly there is variation within Gryffindor [and presumably the other houses]) Not relevant to Hogwarts admission Ostensibly key to Sorting ceremony Will obviously influence one's preference of post-Hogwarts occupation -Character (integrity, being true to self, whatever that self is) Not relevant to Hogwarts admission Seen to be key to moral choices, how one directs one's life-path The differentiation between personality and character is a difficult one, but IMO is important if we aren't to fall into the trap of assuming, for example, that only Gryffindors can be heroes. Others can be heroes in their own way, using their own particular aptitudes. Roughly, I see the difference as ` personality'/house defining what someone would most value when push came to shove, and character determining whether s/he had the guts to go with that choice. This can lead into some sticky territory when considering good and evil; arguably, for example, it is Peter Pettigrew's lack of character that lets him down, so he slides/lets himself be used. The moral danger for members of Slytherin house is that valuing ambition above all is the most likely to lead into moral danger: for example ambition + weak character = jealousy and petty backstabbing, and ambition + strong character = grasping for power regardless of all else. The moral choice for the Slytherin, then, is the *direction* that his/her ambition will take. IMO other houses are a bit safer ? a Ravenclaw could take some dark and twisted roads seeking to *know*, a Hufflepuff could be unfailingly loyal to something evil, but neither of these are inherently selfish a la Slyth ("power- hungry", "of great ambition" ? GoF Sorting; "cunning", "use any means to achieve their ends" ? PP/SS Sorting). Members of other houses are left more room for their drives to be tempered by their relationships to other people. I generalise, of course, as I'm trying to see some structure behind all the possible shades of grey. I strikes me as being a very strange system that groups students in such a way that amplifies people's natural mistrust of characteristics that are different to their own ? surely it is precisely those other traits that students to develop in order to balance the vices inherent in their own virtues? I wonder to what extent JKR has thought that through? I suppose it's possible that keeping people with similar personal qualities together helps those qualities develop, and perhaps that sort of security is crucial to the magical development of young wizards. But at least they have classes with other `types' of student. Hmmm. Got a bit sidetracked there. Pippin said: >One thing that wasn't pointed out in this >thread or in Jim's is that it would be easier >to avoid racism and prejudice if there was no >evidence at all that character traits can be >handed down genetically or "in the blood" >as the wizards would say. I think my brain may have been splashed with some Goyle Polyjuice, because I'm not quite following you, Pippin. So please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your meaning, but I *think* that what you said above was precisely the point of my original post. Pippin went on: >[snip] I don't see that the heritability of >character traits and the wrongness of racism >and prejudice are connected. To say "all >---- are alike" is hurtful, regardless of >how much diversity there happens to be >within a particular group. In life, I agree. In canon, it seems to me that it presents us with a logical inconsistency in the moral sense of the books: 1) A major theme in the books is that it is choice that counts, not abilities, nor bloodlines. 2) We are shown `evil' (Malfoys) and misguided (Fudge) characters who judge others on the basis of blood purity. The `good' characters don't. This suggests that the readers are being encouraged to conclude `judging on the basis of bloodline is wrong.' 3) But on the other hand, we are presented with a world in which `character' (which I defined above as `personality') traits correlate *very* strongly with bloodline. So far, nice and nasty people seem to run in families; we have not ? thus far ? been shown a world in which there are the occasional black Weasleys/Potters and white Malfoys (ferrets aside) [and the themes JKR is exploring come out in what we are shown, not in what is conceptually possible]. This isn't just a background quirk, it is *institutionalised* and perpetuated by the `good guys' by means of the house system. 4) Therefore, there *are* certain judgements that can be ? and are ? made in this world about someone on the basis of bloodline. This contradicts point (2). 5) Unless JKR is really saying that it doesn't matter how much of your blood is wizard blood, but that `good' or `bad' blood can run in wizards and Muggles alike? But the concept of good or bad blood seems to contradict point (1). I'm not sure that showing that some*one* can transcend bloodline (eg Redeemed!Draco) would resolve this. Perhaps showing that, for example, Slytherins are not *generally* evil after all (or that their evil is due to other factors than inherited blood) might do so. I can't remember who mentioned Crouch? Interesting contrast there between Crouch Snr and Crouch Jnr. Assuming that they were in the same house, they probably had similar `personalities', but *did* make different choices. But even with one choosing the light and the other choosing the dark, perhaps they were not all that dissimilar in the end, given Crouch Snr's ruthlessness. Aah, shades of grey are so much more interesting! Incidentally, has anyone else wondered what happens to ambitious Muggle-born wizards? Would Slytherin reject them as not having sufficient purity? Or is `personality' more important? Pippin again: > Harry really doesn't know much about the people in > the other Houses. If he got to know them better, > mightn't we find that in truth Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, > and even Slytherins are quite as diverse as the > Gryffindors? Here's hoping! :-) Chthonia (who will one day learn to write a short post and get to bed on time) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 9 01:42:17 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 01:42:17 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. (1 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47976 "Therapy is what you need," says Cindy, taking a dazed Eileen by the arm. "What was it Elkins said about Barty Jr.? Be careful what you ask for?" "But... but... I liked it," says Eileen. "It was beautiful. I'm going to be famous, you know. Go down in history as having a starring role in the Crouch Trilogy Squared." "Then why are you looking like that?" "I've lost my entire reputation over Barty Crouch Sr. Comfort-hurt and all. I feel so twisted, and bent... and dirty. That was so good!" "Therapy," says Cindy, and drags her off to St. Mungo's to talk with George. "I think it would be best to start at the beginning," says George, as Eileen lies down on the couch. "You were standing on the promenade promoting that C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. of yours," he says, wrinkling his nose, "when along came Elkins." "Yes, she came along and admitted Crouch Sr. was dead sexy!" "That's not how I remember it," says Cindy. "You skipped a whole chunk of stuff." "Celebrate your victories when you can. I've won an argument with Elkins! I feel so elated. She also made me feel like I was seriously and unredeemably bent, but..." "But that's not a new feeling for you," says Cindy. "I understand." "One of the aims of this therapy," says George, ignoring Eileen's ravings, "will be to channel your emotions towards healthier objects of affection. I think we'll take a leaf from Elkins and suggest that we consider Arthur Weasley as a replacement." "No," says Eileen blankly. "Oh, come on," says Cindy, "Nothing wrong with Arthur Weasley. Everyone loves Arthur Weasley." "If I were to admit Arthur Weasley was sexy, that would be a matter for my therapist. Though I am seeing my therapist, it seems, right now. It's that incest taboo again. You know why I get so hot when you denigrate Percy Weasley, Cindy?" "You have a crush on him as well?" "Absolutely not. Percy Weasley is me. My parents are Arthur and Molly. I have all those harassing and teasing siblings. I wear glasses. I'm the bookish, stiff, uptight child. I'm the policy wonk in the family. And I find Barty Crouch Sr. very appealing." "It's the jack boots," says Cindy explainingly to George. "Apparently," says Eileen. "And that's why I feel so sick and twisted. Elkins has implied so many horrible things about my psyche. I'm a modern woman. A feminist. A believer in equality. And Elkins basically implied that I liked being dominated." "Well, that's what S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. live with, by definition, isn't it?" asked Cindy. "I can't see why you're complaining now." "And she called me a shameless hussy. Well, I can't be that shameless, can I, if my face was a deep shade of crimson all through reading that first post? Let's not even talk about Post Nine, right now." Cindy looks at George. "I think we should get Elkins in here to talk her through this." George shakes his head. "You remember the last therapy session with Elkins. Besides, do you really think Eileen needs that sort of influence in her life? Do you remember her when she came on the list? A normal girl, eighteen, naive, trying to supress her bentness. And then she met Elkins... and you. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Corrupting the young." "Well, you're the one dating her," says Cindy huffishly. "Eileen, btw, you shouldn't date your therapist." "I've already got enough problems without considering that, thankyou," says Eileen. "Anyway, George, Elkins was very vicious about Barty Crouch Sr. Utterly destroyed his character, she did. And what will happen is that everyone will go, "Wow!" and not feel up to answering. But I'm determined to answer every one of those posts." "I don't think that'll be good for your health," says George. "We'll see. I'm starting with C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. which is easiest, since she basically endorsed my "Voice Crying In the Wilderness" act, even if she implied that I was messed up. Can anyone ever tell me again that Barty Crouch Sr. isn't marked by the text as attractive after Elkins has said he is?" "There you go dwelling on the positive again," says Cindy. "You're delusional. What Elkins had to say was unpleasant. She said that Barty Crouch was a "spiritually ugly man." "Oh, I agree." "You agree?" says Cindy, her eyes... well, we won't say bulging, because under the circumstances, that would be very unkind. "Yeah. To tell you the truth, I've been stealthily leaving things out of my Crouch apologetic posts, performing sleights of hand to make anyone blush. (Like the fact that Black's timeline seemed wrong.) And Elkins called me on every one of my ommissions, as I rather expected her to do. And she caught the hints I'd made to the points that told against me." "Eileen, which House did you say you were in again?" "Gryffindor," says Eileen innocently. "But I still rather like Barty Crouch Sr. Even Elkins's ever-so-bent Crouch. I mean, honestly, could you imagine he was THAT bent?" "That's a plus?" asks Cindy. "We'll get to that later in the series. We'll just deal with this post right now. Anyway, as I said to her, after that lovely comment about spiritual ugliness, finding a character sexy has nothing to do with approving his actions, any more than finding him sympathetic does." Eileen's eyes are glowing. "He was suave," she says. "A sharp dresser. And brilliant, too -- he spoke over two hundred languages! He had a dry sense of humour, and the ability to remain calm in even the most bizarre circumstances. He was a terrific actor, just like his son. He was exceptionally charismatic. People paid attention to him when he spoke. He had true power of command. And on top of all of that, he reminds me of King Lear!" "You found King Lear Dead Sexy?" asks George. "Eileen, that is just so *Bent!*" "That's what Elkins said," says Eileen frowning. "No, of course not. We all know who's Dead Sexy in King Lear." "I don't want to know," says Cindy. "I don't want to know." "The manipulative parricide who always speaks in double meanings. If Lear is an analogue to Crouch Sr., Barty Jr.'s analogue is obviously Edmund. I read Edmund in our Grade 12 dramatic reading of King Lear, you know. Dead sexy does not begin to describe that role." "That's more information that I want to know," says Cindy. "OK. Let's get back to the issue at hand. Crouch Sr. is a proud and seemingly invulnerable man we later come to realize is in fact deeply wounded. We see him suffering both nobly and terribly. That means that he partakes of Hurt-Comfort! And I really do believe this. Particularly in light of Part Eight, but we'll get there eventually. I feel really sorry for him, you know. So yes, Hurt-Comfort is there, I suppose. " "Not to mention Comfort-Hurt," comments Cindy "Would you stop that!" cries Eileen. "For the last time, there is no such *thing* as Comfort-Hurt!" "There most definitely is," says Cindy. "Elkins endorsed me on that one. I told her that you took *comfort* in the knowledge that Crouch Sr. would not balk at *hurting* you. And she agreed with me. She even handed me a damaging quote." > "You said as much yourself," Elkins points out. "In message #40543. > Remember? You said, 'Elkins, SYCOPHANTS were made to worship Tough > people.' You even said it in 'an impassioned, and curiously > trembling voice,' as I seem to recall." > "'Impassioned and curiously trembling,'" Cindy repeats. "I...I...well, all right then! All right! *Fine!* So maybe there *is* some appeal there. I'm a SYCOPHANT, aren't I? And we SYCOPHANTS really *were* made to worship Tough people, you know. It's in our contract and everything. Our knees go *weak* in the face of the Tough and the Steely!" Privately, Eileen is wondering what possessed her to write "impassioned and curiously trembling." "I mean," says Eileen. "Where does Elkins think she's lecturing me from. Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange. Who invented Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange? Why won't she try just a taste of my CRAB CUSTARD? She loved the man's son. I assume that was at least in part because of her appreciation for his brilliance. His brilliance and his manipulative talents. Well, what about his poor father's brilliance? What about his poor father's manipulative talents? Just where do she think Barty Jr. got that from anyway?" "From his mother apparently," says Cindy. "Err.. yes. And she makes a pretty convincing case for that. I'll never look at the Pensieve scene the same way again. Maybe we could call it even and say that Barty had dramatic genes on both sides coming to him. She did agree that the Dark Mark performance was a masterpiece." "And Mrs. Crouch was apparently strong, not weak," says Cindy. "I don't like Mrs. Crouch," says Eileen. "It's envy," says Cindy. Eileen winces. "Captain Cindy, you are not helping Eileen work out her problems," says George sternly. "That was mean." "But it was funny!" says Cindy. "And apparently, Elkins and Eileen like that type of humour. They like sadism with a smile. Anyway, Mrs. Crouch apparently is Tough. Are you going to contest that, Eileen?" "No," says Eileen, shaking her head. "And I like her the less for it. I was seriously tempted by Pip's Ever So Evil Mrs. Crouch, as well. Anyway, you know how Elkins usually likes that sort of thing. Everyone knows she adores manipulators. So why doesn't she like canny old Crouch?" "Because you slandered his son," says Cindy. "Said he gave his father grey hairs. Plus you forgot a certain fact about Elkins when you wrote that." "I am rather insensitive in that regard," says Eileen. "Of course, grey hair can be sexy. It's just. Well, I'm only nineteen, and my hair is a long, curly gold-brown, and by far, my best point... and so maybe I do tend towards hairism. But grey hair is perfectly sexy in its own right. Tell Elkins that for me. I mean, she's right. Lupin's sexy." "Oh, ok," says Cindy. "Anything else you want to blather about?" "Cindy!" cries George. "This is therapy. She's supposed to blather." "Oh no, I'm far too happy with what Elkins finally said. She conceded that the text does encourage us to read him as charasmatic, that it doesn't rule out a reading of Crouch as attractive, that it does so in the ways I mentioned, but also by its repeated allocation of sexualized subplots to Crouch." George lifts his eyebrow. "Yeah, I hadn't noticed that either," says Eileen. "But she's right on the money about Winky and Percy. We'll talk about Winky/Crouch later, but she's right that there is a sexual subtext in both those cases. And, as she pointed out, Crouch is the only character to get that sort of treatment." "So then what?" asks George. "She said Crouch Sr. was Dead Sexy." "Not exactly," says Cindy. "What she really said was "All *right!* Dead Sexy. *IF* you happen to like that sort of thing. Which I myself absolutely do *NOT! Okay? Enough? Does that *SATISFY* you, Eileen? Are you *HAPPY* now?" "Are you?" asks George. Eileen considers the question for a moment, then smiles. "Yes," she says. > ********************************************************************* > > REFERENCES: > > Opening TBAY scenario: #43326 > > Eileen's original CRAB CUSTARD manifesto: #37476. > > Crouch: #45693, #45402, #44636, #40543, #43010 and > downthread responses. > > Acronyms: #35630, #37498. > > Ever So Evil Mrs. Crouch: #39573. > > ESE Winky: #39102. > > Hurt-Comfort: #39083 and downthread responses. > > Comfort-Hurt: #43373 and downthread responses. > > For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, > visit Hypothetic Alley at > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From the.gremlin at verizon.net Mon Dec 9 04:23:39 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:23:39 -0000 Subject: Wizard fertility (Re: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47977 Janet Anderson wrote: "Which may mean that while Harry's year (and older) may have more only children, more recent years (like the McCreeveys) would have more than one." Just like to point out that the McCreeveys (or is it just Creevys? i'm too lazy to look) are muggle-born, and therefore, not involoved with the V-Mort Wars. "And it's my opinion that Draco's parents are, shall we say, not a very affectionate couple and once they had Draco as a son and heir they considered him sufficient." That's my opinion, too, I was just searching for evidence. -Acire, who is sorry that everyone got those two posts that were just an old one quoted, she actually wrote out a nice post about Snape, and for some reason, it just didn't take. I'll try and repost. From carmenharms at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 04:35:06 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:35:06 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Porphyria Ashenden " wrote: > > > Of course what I tried to stress in saying that Snape is a cast-off > animus (for you Jungians out there) is that he's exactly what women > don't get to be. Snape isn't effeminate at all; he's tough, > aggressive, competitive, hardnosed, unforgiving, exacting, etc. > > But on the other hand, there are some feminine (or yin) aspects to > Snape's depiction, aren't there? For one thing, I find it intriguing > that his craft is the one most often associated with (female) > witches; brewing in a cauldron, as opposed to the traditional > depiction of wizards with their really big staffs. In fact, he > disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic > obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with > their more sneaky, devious ways (and feminine symbolism Now me: The paragraph above reminded me of something that I had wanted to post a few months ago (and can't actually remember why I didn't). Namely, that the description of Snape sounds... familiar. Okay, he's got a big nose, long greasy black hair, a sallow (or greenish) face, he wears long black robes, and he's associated with cauldrons and potion-making. Doesn't this sound like the classic *witch* of the Halloween or fairytale variety? Think about it! At least before HP, that was the mental picture most commonly associated with the word "witch". And in the Potterverse, there are *no* witches who look like that -- but one wizard does! I thought at the time that it was JKR's little joke... but I didn't know what she meant by it. Porphyria's theory shines a whole different light on it -- as in, maybe it wasn't a joke at all. --snazzzybird, who has been a hopelessly devoted Snapefan since Book 1 From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 9 04:35:16 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:35:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Where Three Roads Meet (2 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47979 "Elkins, Cindy, TBAYers, lend me your ears. I come to bury Crouch, not to praise him. The evil that men does lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Crouch." "Which good was that?" asks Elkins, who unlike a certain naive conspirator of long ago, was wise enough to stick around for Eileen's speech. "Protecting the wizarding world by fighting Voldemort," says Eileen. "I mean, really. The noble Elkins hath told you all that Crouch was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously has Crouch answered it." "Not nearly grievously enough," says Elkins. "You have no idea of the extent of his fault," Elkins takes out her pipe, and lights it. "Let's call this The Case of the Greying Hair." "Grey hair is sexy," says Eileen nervously. "I admitted that." "There's more to the grey hair than that, m'dear," says Elkins, puffing on her pipe. "So," says Eileen, rearranging her small cups of CRAB CUSTARD with an ill-concealed air of insufferably smug self-satisfaction. "Now that you've conceded that Crouch Sr. was indeed Dead Sexy, what next?" "I have conceded no such thing," protests Elkins. "I have merely conceded that the text does indeed *facilitate* such a reading. For those Sick and Twisted and Warped and *Bent* enough to take the text up on its offer, that is." Eileen sighs. "You know, Elkins," she comments. "I really am growing inured to your habit of calling me Sick and Twisted and Warped and Bent. I hardly even notice it anymore. I hope that doesn't disappoint you too terribly much." "It elates me," says Elkins coldly. "Though actually," says Eileen rather hastily. "This time around I'm feeling alone and isolated. As if I was the only sick, twisted, warped and bent person on the list. What's worse? Saying Crouch Sr. is dead sexy or shipping Crouch/Winky?" "We'll talk about that later," says Elkins. "I'm afraid, you know, that I really must take umbrage at this...*insinuation* of yours that poor dear Bartemius Junior was the one responsible for the graying of his beastly father's wretched hair. I simply can't allow that to pass any longer. It really is the most vile slander imaginable, and--" "You can't call Barty Crouch Sr. beastly in the middle of an argument?" says Eileen. "What sort of objectivity is that?" "Objectivity?" says Elkins with a sniff. "I beg your pardon. Anyway, Crouch's hair would seem to have started going grey somewhere around the time of Rookwood's arrest. During Karkaroff's testimony, "Crouch's hair was dark." At Bagman's trial, "Mr. Crouch looked more tired and somehow fiercer, gaunter..." By the time we get to the sentencing of young Crouch and his co-defendents, "Harry looked up at Crouch and saw that he looked gaunter and grayer than ever before." "By jove, you're right," says Eileen. "I mean, it's not like I sat down and thought "Barty Jr's caused his father to go grey, as evidenced by points a, b, and c. It was just a flippant remark. Not important at all." "On the contrary," says Elkins, "Crouch's Graying Hair Timeline is highly significant!The Devil's in the details," she says softly. "Isn't it, Eileen." Eileen experiences a sinking feeling in her stomach. "The Crouch's Greying Hair Timeline," Elkins says, still smiling rather predatorily over at Eileen. "Is relevant because it speaks to Crouch's political situation in the years following Voldemort's fall. Which in turn speaks to his state of mind at the time of his son's arrest. Which in turn speaks to his motivations in regard to his son's trial. Which in *turn,*" she concludes. "Has direct bearing on the nature of his _hamartia._" "His what?" asks Cindy. "His fault, his failing. The error that leads to his destruction." "His tragic flaw," explains Eileen wearily. "Oh." "And that, in turn, has direct bearing on Eileen's reading of Crouch as Tragic Hero." "So you *did* read my Crouch As Tragic Hero post," exclaims Eileen. "I'd wondered. All that silence after I asked for your opinion. Well, I guess I'm getting it now." "Yes, I did read it. I liked it very much. But Crouch as Tragic Hero just doesn't hold together for me, because...well..." Elkins' smirk quivers. She shifts uncomfortably in her saddle. "Eileen," she says slowly. "Do you remember back in message #44636, when you told me: > > Let me confess that I like nothing better than seeing you attack > > Crouch Sr. It makes me feel beleaguered and under pressure?" "Yeeees," says Eileen cautiously. "I do seem to remember saying something like that to you once. Despiadado Denethor, wasn't it? Look, you're not going to say that points to my bent character, are you, because I think I already know that." "You really did mean that, didn't you? I mean, you weren't just saying that? You really *meant* it?" "Uh-oh," mutters Cindy. "Yeah," says Eileen. "I did mean it. Nothing so delightful as nine posts of vituperative language, imho. So, there will be some?" "Almost certainly," Elkins assures her. "Vituperative language galore. Also stridency, hostility, and bile. Possibly even some spitting. I *did* tell you that I hadn't even begun to touch on Mr. Crouch's iniquities, didn't I? And you *know* how I feel about the man. I just couldn't *believe* that he wasn't included as an option on that 'who do you hate the most?' poll on OTC. I mean, the pathetic Cornelius Fudge? The sad sad Dursleys? That mild- mannered fellow Voldemort? And yet no Barty Crouch Sr.? Really! What on earth is *wrong* with people?" Eileen opens her mouth to speak, then seems to think better of it. "So yes," Elkins concludes. "There will likely be vituperative language. No Cruciatus this time, though. I promise." Eileen breathes a sigh of reflief. "Have you noticed, by the way, that the Crouch's Greying Hair Timeline contradicts Sirius' accounting of events?" "Not the greying hair timeline specifically," says Eileen frowning. "But I did notice that Crouch Sr. was already in trouble before the Pensieve scene. I've been sitting on it, wondering if you would catch me out on it, and use it against me." "Well, yes," says Elkins, with a parsed smile. "I'll do exactly that.Crouch's hold on his political power was slipping even before the Longbottom affair happened. At Ludo Bagman's trial, the public turns against Crouch. They cut him off with angry murmers before he can even finish delivering his recommendation to the jury, and they cheer the defendent he is trying to prosecute. In the end, they effectively overturn his verdict: Ludo Bagman walks free. Furthermore, when Crouch tries to intervene: "....there was an angry outcry from the surrounding benches. Several of the witches and wizards around the walls stood up, shaking their heads, and even their fists, at Mr. Crouch." Shaking their *fists* at him? And that is when his hair is first beginning to go grey." "Oh dear," says Eileen. "This looks to me like a man whose political star is already beginning to fall. I don't think that it was his son's arrest that destroyed Crouch's political career at all," says Elkins firmly. "I think that it was peace." "Peace?" Elkins nods. "What we are looking at here is a man whose rise to power was itself a by-product of the war. We are looking at a man who was *made* by the war." Eileen nods. "Really, Voldemort's rise would seem to have been very good to Crouch. By the end of the conflict, it seems that he had even managed to wrest for himself somehow the right to make unilateral decisions regarding the disposition of prisoners. That's an extraordinary amount of power for one man to hold." "Well, you know, Elkins," Cindy says. "There *was* a war on." "Right," says Elkins, "but take a look at this." "'He had his supporters, mind you -- plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamoring for him to take over as Minister of Magic.'" "Yes," says Elkins. "'Supporters.' 'Clamoring.' 'Clamoring for him to take over.' What does that sound like to you?" Cindy's eyes light up. "A *coup!*" she cries. "It sounds like a bloody *coup!*" "Elkins," says Eileen reprovingly. "Now look what you've done." "Bloody Coup! Bloody Coup! Bloody Coup!" "You just *had* to set her off, didn't you? Elkins, you know perfectly well that you're exaggerating again. Crouch wasn't Stalin, and he wasn't planning a bloody coup either." "No," agrees Elkins. "He wasn't planning a bloody coup. However, I do think that there are some elements of that dynamic implied by the text. He does seem to have seized for himself quite a few unilateral powers by the end of the war. People are always talking about what *Crouch* did. Who was the Minister of Magic while Crouch was the head of the DMLE?" "I asked that in Post ," says Eileen smugly. Elkins looks vaguely annoyed. "Yes?" "Well, I said, >We don't know who the Minister for Magic was >then. Sirius's testimony in GoF gives an impression >that Crouch was very much in charge, but I pointed out >in Post 44636 (Despiadado Denethor et. al.) that there >are many indications that Crouch's hands were actually >tied on certain things. Do you think Lucius Malfoy could >have got off on Imperius if Crouch had his complete way? "So, see there. He hadn't usurped all the power," says Eileen. "Uh-huh. Right. Let's try this one, then. In Harry's day, in the time period of the canon, who is the person we see authorizing all extraordinary legal measures? Who decides to place Hagrid into custody? Who authorizes the Dementor's Kiss to be used on Sirius Black? Who gives Harry a pass on his violations of the Restriction on Underage Wizardry? Who is the person we consistently see making those decisions?" There is another brief silence. "Cornelius Fudge," Eileen answers, at length. "Yes. Cornelius Fudge. Who is the *Minister of Magic.* And the current head of the DMLE is...?" "A hit,a palpable hit. I do confess," says Eileen. "Though with limitations, as outlined above." "I'd say that the war treated Crouch pretty well," Elkins says softly. "Wouldn't you? But it ended. Voldemort fell, the war ended, and once that happened, Crouch started to lose his influence. We see it happening, right there in the Pensieve. We see the public turn against him at Bagman's trial. We see them shake their fists at him, and cheer on the defendent. We see his signs of exhaustion, his evident signs of aging. All of that happened *before* the arrest of the PensieveFour. The Pensieve scenes show us that Crouch's career was already in trouble. It was in trouble even before the assault on the Longbottoms took place." "Because the war had ended," murmurs Eileen. "People always talk about Bagman's trial as if it is just an illustration of the jury's bias in favor of a popular celebrity, you know, but I think they were conveying the message that the time for witch-hunts was over. As was the time for dictatorial unilateral powers." "I think you're right," says Eileen, with a glum smile. "It's a funny thing, though, you know," continues Elkins, "the way once the immediate danger is past, then people do often start to feel rather differently about those they allowed to strip them of their liberties 'for their own good' while the threat was still active. They sometimes get a wee bit *resentful* about that. *Especially* if they come to suspect that their protector's motives were perhaps never really all that pure to begin with. We see that with Crouch Jr., I think. And I'd say that at Bagman's trial, we see it with the wizarding world as a body politic." "Ungrateful little brats," mutters Eileen. "Hating tyranny is *not* ingratitude, Eileen," snaps Elkins. "Hating tyranny is a moral *imperative!*" The question of tyranny and obedience in the books really brings us right back to that old question of rule-breaking in the series, doesn't it? In the HP books, the virtue of obedience is largely dependent upon the intentions of those giving the orders. Were Crouch's motives pure?" "Yes," answers Eileen instantly, if in a little too high-pitched voice. Elkins closes her eyes. "That was a rhetorical question, Eileen," she says. "Obviously *I* don't think that Crouch's motives were pure. And that's my real problem with Crouch as Tragic Hero, you know. I'm not seeing any purity of motive there." "Why does that matter?" asks Cindy. Eileen sighs. "Because of Nobility of Stature," she explains. "Tragic heroes possess nobility of stature, and properly that ought to apply to virtue as well as to social standing. It's the very first question on the Tragic Hero Quiz. But what about Macbeth?" "Macbeth?" "Macbeth's a tragic hero, and where was his purity of motive? He was a good guy at first (noble in stature) and then he was corrupted." "Well," said Elkins, "Do Crouch's choices reveal nobility of stature? Does he display any true nobility or purity of motive at all? At any time? What can we deduce about Crouch's motives, in light of what we have deduced about his political situation in the wake of Voldemort's fall? What was Point Five of your CRAB CUSTARD manifesto again?" Eileen pulls out her own yellowed copy of message #37476 and reads aloud: > > 5. If Crouch had survived GoF, he would very likely have finally > > been made Minister for Magic. With Voldemort back, he would not > > have stayed silent, and people would have rallied behind him. "Yes," says Elkins. "You know, I think you're absolutely right about that?" "You do?" says Eileen with astonishment. "And all this time I thought people had just laughed that assertion off." "I do. And I think that Crouch himself knew it, too. Remember when Sirius claimed that he had developed a mania for catching one last Dark Wizard? Because if only he could do that, then it might restore his lost *popularity?*" "Because we always believe Sirius," says Eileen. "Honestly, Elkins, where did Sirius get than information?" "You know you believe it," says Elkins. "Now let's have Point Four of the CRAB CUSTARD manifesto." "It wasn't a manifesto!" cries Eileen. "It was just a little of thoughts and discussion points I came up with after my computer crashed, and I lost my mega-Crouch post. (Though it was nothing as mega as this one.) > > 4. Crouch did not sacrifice his son to his career ambition. This > > seems to be a red herring in the plot. "But I am not so sure," says Elkins quietly. "I see plenty of indications in the text that Crouch was indeed in the habit of sacrificing people to his political ambitions, and that the Pensieve Four, guilty though they may have been, were indeed among the people so sacrificed, just like Sirius Black was. The Pensieve sequences suggest that Crouch was a war-time leader, one whose popularity was largely dependent upon the fear and paranoia of a war-time mentality. Absent that mentality, his grasp on the affection of the public begins to slip. Really, after Rookwood, he doesn't seem to have had much left in the way of big game, does he? He's been reduced to trying to prosecute hapless morons like Ludo Bagman, who are guilty of things like passing on information to old family friends. It's just sad, really. Not at all advantageous to Crouch. Not at all good for his *career.* Politicians like Crouch can only maintain their power for as long as they have an Enemy. Preferably one with a Capital E. "I think that the assault on the Longbottoms must have seemed like a golden opportunity for Crouch," says Elkins. Eileen flinches. "You're not saying that Crouch Sr. was all, "Oh look, Longbottom, whom I knew personally, who worked for me, and his wife were tortured to insanity. WOOHOOO!" Elkins ignores her. "His department was under pressure to make an arrest. People were outraged. They were out for blood. The Longbottom case put the public right back under Crouch's thumb, didn't it? It made them want him *back.* And he was right there for them when they did. Just look at the performance he gave them at his son's sentencing!" "Performance?" says Eileen thoughtfully. "And I'd thought that loss of temper was his downfall." "Well, it was," says Elkins, "but not in the way you think." "Are you saying that was all an act?" asks Eileen doubtfully. "I don't think that it was *all* an act, not on any of their parts. I'm sure that Mrs. Crouch was genuinely distraught. I'm sure that Crouch Jr. was genuinely terrified. And I'm sure that Crouch Sr. was genuinely furious with his son," "Good, so he wasn't celebrating Frank's downfall, thankyou for saying that," says Eileen snarkily. "as well as genuinely conflicted, and probably also feeling rather angry with the crowd for putting him in such an awful situation. I also agree with Charis that he was 'acting to himself' to a certain xtent: psyching himself up, steeling his nerve, trying to divorce his feelings from what he felt that he had to be doing... But he was playing to his audience as well. He wasn't *just* 'acting to himself.' Crouch was playing the crowd." "You're just saying that because you don't like him," says Cindy. "No, I'm not," snaps Elkins irritably. "Look. That particular expression of rage, with all of the bellowing, and the eye bulging, and...well, doesn't that entire routine strike the reader as awfully *familiar?* Hadn't we seen all that somewhere before? Somewhere else, long before the Pensieve chapter came along?" Eileen nods. She flips through her copy of GoF, finds the page, and begins to read: "'And I trust you remember the many proofs I have given, over a long career, that I despise and detest the Dark Arts and those who practice them?" Mr. Crouch shouted, his eyes bulging again." "It's quite clearly written as a parallel scene," says Elkins. Eileen nods. "You said yourself that the scene at the QWC showcases Crouch's manipulative talents, Eileen."Given that the two scenes *are* so obviously and blatantly parallel, doesn't that almost beg us to take a closer look at what is really happening in each of them? In both cases, Crouch is not *just* renouncing a disobedient member of his household. He is very specifically doing so for the benefit of an *audience.* And in a situation in which it is very much to his own personal advantage to put on a good show of hard-line severity to protect himself: his reputation, his position, his standing, his freedom, his fugitive son." "All right," says Eileen, "I concede the point." "You do?" says Cindy in surprise. "Parallel scenes. I have a weakeness for those," says Eileen. "I can't agree that 'Crouch sacrificed his son to his career ambition' is a red herring," continues Elkins. "That's a gross over-simplification of a rather thematically-complex plotline, to be sure. It's hardly the whole story. But I can't see it as precisely a red herring because in fact, Crouch *did* have very strong political reasons to behave exactly as he did in regard to the Longbottom Affair, and the text itself encourages us to consider them: by showing us the trajectory of his post-war career in the Pensieve scenes, by drawing such a strong parallel between the scene at the sentencing and the scene at the QWC, and by giving us Sirius' comment about Crouch's 'mania' for catching just one last Dark Wizard -- to restore his lost *popularity.*" "Yes," says Eileen wearily. "You're right." "That witch-hunt atmosphere we see at the trial of the Pensieve Four was exactly what Crouch needed. It was what he thrived on. His political power depended on it. The Longbottom Incident was Crouch's one great chance to regain what he had lost when Voldemort fell. And he *seized* it. He exploited the opportunity. At his son's sentencing, we see him encouraging that atmosphere. He's really not doing a thing to combat the mob mentality in that courtroom, is he? On the contrary, he is actively fostering it, with all of his 'crime so heinous we've never seen the like,' and his 'resume the lives of violence you had led' talk. Really, he's spurring the crowd on, isn't he? He's whipping them up. He is *pandering,* pandering to all of their very worst instincts, and he is doing it deliberately, because that sort of mass hysteria was the source of Crouch's personal power. That atmosphere of hatred and anger and paranoia is precisely what the likes of Crouch batten upon. That witch hunt atmosphere was exactly what he *needed.*" Eileen groans. Elkins has far too much of a gift for rhetoric. Elkins pauses for breath. "But he overstepped," she concludes, with a kind of grim relish. "He overstepped, he miscalculated, he misjudged. And because his own son was involved, it all backfired on him. Evil oft will evil mar. Hoist by his own petard. Sic. Semper. Tyrannis." "They weren't tough and Livian enough," says Eilen to herself. "And Brutus was an honorable man," she says cautiously. "But so was Bartemius Crouch. You said so yourself, you know, Elkins. You did." "Did I? Did *I* say that? Did I really?" Elkins thinks for a moment, then sighs. "Yes," she admits. "I suppose that I did say that once, didn't I. Well, you know, Eileen, your Crouch Sr. Apologetics are really very persuasive. Dangerously so, at times, with all of those Tough and Steely Livian parallels that I find so hard to resist, and all of that lovely meta-thinking that you do so well. They're positively *fiendish,* they really are. Imperius- like, in fact. And I am vulnerable to Imperius, you know. I'm even worse than the Weasleys that way." Eileen looks stunned. "You mean you liked my Crouch apologetics? You weren't just sitting there laughing at my mundane attempts to turn the Potterverse on its head? "Don't get too swollen a head," says Cindy. "I sense a 'But' coming." "Well, she can't completely "but," I did prove to her that Crouch wouldn't Avada Kedavra the neighbours for the ping-pong table." "*But.*," says Elkin, clearing her throat. "There's one thing that they always seem to overlook. One absolutely vital aspect of Crouch's character that they never seem to touch upon, or even to acknowledge somehow. And it's a very curious omission, too, because it's a thing that strikes me as quite possibly Crouch Sr's most notable characteristic. I also feel that it is absolutely vital to the question of whether or not we can read him as a tragic hero." "Oh?" asks Eileen. "What's that?" Elkins smiles at her gently, almost pityingly. "Why," she says. "That he was the most appalling hypocrite, of course." "Oh dear," says Eileen. > ********************************************************************* > > REFERENCES: > > Oedipus committed his act of parridice at a "trivium," a place where > three roads meet. > > The CRAB CUSTARD Manifesto: message #37476 > > Crouch as Tragic Hero: message #45402 > > Also referenced or cited: #37574, #37769, #37781, #43010 and many of > its downthread responses, #43447, #44636, #45662, #45693. One line > of Eileen's dialogue swiped shamelessly from off-list correspondence. > > JOdel's message #45662 outlines her pet "the Pensieve Four conspired > to bring down Crouch" speculation. Although this theory is obviously > incompatable with my own interpretation of the timeline of events, I > am nonetheless exceptionally fond of it. > > On How Dangerous Buried Things Can Be: for a discussion of the motif > of burial (as well as parricide!) in GoF, see also message #38398. > > For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, > visit Hypothetic Alley at > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From the.gremlin at verizon.net Mon Dec 9 04:47:10 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:47:10 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47980 Ezzie: "If you're a Snape fan, ask yourself when the inclinations (obsession?) began." My obsession (see? I'm admitting it!) began in book 3 and was cemented in Book 4. Book 3 was when we found out a little about his past. We knew he had hated James, but we didn't know why, nor did we know the circumstances of the life-debt. That and we finally get to see him in a different light than the sarcastic teacher who talks softly. We see him completely lose it, and while it's funny, I just can't help feeling sorry for him because he just lost everything. In book 4, we learn that he was once a DE, and then we start asking questions: why was he a DE? Why did he turn? What were his personal reasons? We go a little bit more into his background, just enough to keep us interested, but not enough to satisfy us. I really want to find out more about him. Ezzie: "I certainly can't dispute that some women might feel this way. But we can't discount for the fact that a lot of women are attracted to him because he's obviously tortured and he is for all practical purposes a 'bad boy'." I have the image of a little black cat with a collar, and I'm scolding it...anyway, I have found that I tend to like the male characters who are...well, tortured. For a few examples, my favorite character in the anime 'Gundam Wing' is the 15 year old trained assasin, and I like him because he doesn't have any sense of humanity at all, he's like a robot, and thhroughout the series, he's slowly learning to become human. My favorite character in the fantasy series 'Wheel of Time' is Rand al' Thor, because he has to die to save the world, and everyone is either relying on him or trying to kill him, and he didn't ask for any of it, he was just born into it. So I definitely like Snape because a guy like that, with his history, probably has nightmares about it. He's tortured. Ezzie again: "We younger Snape fans often have a darker side to our personalities and perhaps there is a common feeling of angst and torture there." I have never experienced feelings of angst or torture. However, maybe it's from the fact that I never had to experience those feeling, and here's someone who is. It kind of ties in with Porphyria's theory, that we like Snape because he represents something that's looked down on in women. In my case, he represents something I never experienced because my life has taken a different set of paths. Some people like that sort of thing, to pretend to be tortured and angsty, and they like Snape because it allows them to do so, without other people freaking out. So, it's like Porphyria's theory. CK wrote: "He's like the Daffy Duck of the wizarding world - he just CAN'T win. Poor Snape (heehee!)." Okie, when I read this, I thought Donald even though I read Daffy...so if we were comparing him to Donald, it would kind of make sense because Donald can never be better than Mickey, and Snape could never be better than James, so Snape is like the one guy singing 'Donald Duck' during the Mickey Mouse song...okie, I'm going to discontinue that train of thought. Porphyria Ashenden wrote: "In fact, he disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with their more sneaky, devious ways (and feminine symbolism)." I would just like to comment that I thought it incredibly funny that Lockhart's wand in TCTMNBN was so danged *long*. -Acire, who is finding it frustratingly difficult to type with and Ace bandage wrapped around her wrist...I strained it reading...it was a heavy book!!! From jodel at aol.com Mon Dec 9 05:04:11 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 00:04:11 EST Subject: (OT) Chess Set Message-ID: <197.11de1a45.2b257e4b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 47981 Dave comments; >>What I'd really like to see is a chess set that's modelled after HP chars themselves -- Dumbledore as the white king, Harry as a bishop on brooomstick, etc.<< Does sound like fun. Harry is more like the knight, however. And, for a difinitive set one would need to wait until after the publication of book seven. But, still, fun to speculate as we go along. Let's see... On the basis of book 4; White pieces; King = Dumbledore Queen = (Memory of) Lily Potter Bishop/king's-black = Snape Bishop/queen's-white = Remus lupin Knight/king's = Harry Potter Knight/queen's = Sirius Black Tower/king's = Hagrid Tower/queen's = McGonagall Pawns = Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Flitwick, Sprout, Arthur Weasley, Molly Weasley Black pieces; King = Voldemort Queen = Nagini Bishop/king's-black = McNair? Bishop/queen's-white = ???? Knight/king's = Barty Crouch Jr. Knight/queen's = Wormtail Tower/king's = Lucius Malfoy Tower/queen's = ???? Pawns = Cornelius Fudge, Draco, Crabbe Sr., Goyle Sr., Avery, Nott, Les trange, Mdm. Lestrange Clearly, we need to know more about the enemies... Note, as the story arc continues, some pawns almost certainly will be promoted, some major pieces demoted to pawns, and some characters deleted and replaced by others. Some may change sides. Note; If Snape does return to spying, he might show up on both sides of the board. (most probably as the black queen's bishop.) Comments? -JOdel From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 05:26:33 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 05:26:33 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse/Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47982 This thread is dying out, I think, but didn't I read somewhere that "Hermione" was a greek/roman mythological woman loved by TWO men? Someone correct me on this, as I can't remember where or when I read it. So, if Hermione is possibly loved by two men, will it be Harry and Ron? And when I say loved, I don't necessarily mean romantic love. I think Harry might love her as a sister....as for Ron, it would have to be more. I don't know if he is Mr. Right or Mr. Wrong. I think it remains to be seen. But I know someone out there knows what myth I am talking about. Anyone? ;) Alora From jmmears at comcast.net Mon Dec 9 05:31:34 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 05:31:34 -0000 Subject: A plot parallel: Playing dirty In-Reply-To: <2B5C4EA6-0A30-11D7-9B4E-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria wrote: > I've been pondering the issue of certain HP characters with a fondness for > applying rules to other people but deftly avoiding them personally. > Consider the following, and let me know what you think: Hermione, however, didn't seem to consult > anyone before imprisoning and blackmailing Rita Skeeter, and this has > struck me as a very reckless decision which I'm worried will come back to > haunt her. Yes, I agree entirely Porphyria. When I finished GoF I immediately thought that Hermione was making a huge mistake in not blowing the whistle on Skeeter (turning her in to Dumbledore, not the Daily Prophet). I definately think that this bomb will be exploding in book 5, and that Harry will be hurt badly, along with Sirius and Dumbledore. > Yes, blackmailing. Am I wrong, or is that exactly what Hermione does by > telling Rita she'll narc her out to the Ministry if she publishes another > article within a year? "Rita Skeeter isn't going to be writing anything at > all for a while. Not unless she wants me to spill the beans on her." This is classic blackmail on Hermione's part. However, her softhearted intention to let Rita go, as long as she promises not to write any more nasty articles shows a shocking naivete on her part. I think that she is gravely underestimating Rita's vindictiveness and resourcefulness. Rita may be tacky and coarse, but she's not stupid and she may be more than a match for Hermione once she is out of her grasp. > So I ask, do you agree that Hermione's treatment of Skeeter is oddly > similar to Snape's treatment of Lupin? Are their more contrasts that I'm > forgetting? Does the twin's temptation to blackmail Bagman factor into > this theme? How does it relate to the overall motif of Harry operating on > his own for 'good' reasons? And what constitutes 'playing dirty' in the > Potterverse? These are all very interesting points, which I don't recall having been discussed recently. I see a strong parallel between the Hermione/Skeeter and Snape/Lupin situations. Snape's "outing" Lupin had sad consequences for Lupin and Harry. I fear the consequences from Hermione's failure to "out" Skeeter will be very dire indeed. As far as the twins vs Bagman, I think that the blackmail angle serves more to highlight the growing ugliness that all the kids (even the clownish Weasley twins) will be dealing with from now on, rather than as a parallel to the other examples of blackmail. As far as 'playing dirty' in the Potterverse, it seems clear that as the books grow darker, the trio's rule-breaking (for lack of a better term) for their own good reasons, will at some point become less easily justified. This seems to be foreshadowing the fact that the choices will be getting more difficult and morally ambiguous. The good guys will be getting their hands dirtier than they would like. Jo Serenadust From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 9 06:05:17 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 06:05:17 -0000 Subject: ELkins#8&9 / wizarding lifespan&fertility / Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47984 Elkins wrote: << Sort of like 'taking someone out behind the chemical sheds,' I guess. >> Should I have recognized that expression? (Altho' I think I get the idea from your usage.) << Yet Voldemort truly does seem to trust him. So what convinced him that Crouch Jr. really was so utterly and unquestioningly devoted to his service?" (snip) "Yeah, Crouch Jr. had his father screaming and writhing down there on the floor, all right," >> A horrible thought in connection with the recent discussion that Dumbledore has persuaded Snape that Snape will win his way back into Voldemort's trust by bringing him Dumblehead's head on a platter (CHOP: Cranium of Headmaster On a Platter). << I mean, is there any reason that we should assume that Winky was *not* sharing his bed?">> Because House Elves are *ugly*. Oh, you argue that only Muggle-raised folk think so. << I mean, you have to figure, don't you, that the elves probably fill the Nanny role in those households? >> I don't figure anything of the kind, primarily because there is nothing of the kind in the tradition of house elves, brownies, dobbies, all those names: they do the *housework*, sometimes even cooking, sometime shoe-making, during the night, *unseen* by the humans of the household. And the House Elves of Hogwarts do their work sufficiently unseen by the humans there that Hermione would never have learned their were House Elves at Hogwarts if Hearly Headless Nick hadn't *told* her. In addition, there *is* a matter of size: it wouldn't be long before a human child was too big for a House Elf to pick up and cradle in its arms. I believe that families rich enough to have House Elves are rich enough to hire grandmotherly witches as nannies. << One final reason for thinking that perhaps Crouch Sr. wasn't the model of fidelity to his late wife's memory -- or indeed, that perhaps he had *never* been much of a model of marital fidelity." >> Oh, Merlin's ba-beard! Those Crouches are in a social class where sexual fidelity in marriage *doesn't matter*, as long as the wife doesn't bring in any wrong-fathered offspring or be caught with a low-class lover! If Mrs Crouch whined and threw things just because her husband had affairs, she was even more manipulative and coercive and all that than I had thought when she was depicted coercing him into rescuing Junior. << The ones who get down in the trenches of the actual day-to-day dirty work of mothering, whose sacrifices entail *living* for their children, rather than just dying for them. *That* role," says Elkins. "Is filled by the house elves. Who are grotesque and faintly ludicrous. >> Whose role was being filled by JKR herself at the time she wrote Book 1 and envisioned the whole plot of the septology. << an adult with no children and a rather marked (some might even say pathological)aversion to domestic activities, >> like me << often finds herself wondering to what extent she might suffer from a bad case of internalized misogyny >> How can it possibly be misogyny for a woman to refuse to do loathsome and unpleasant slave labor, which no one really wants to do (no woman who can afford to hire servants chooses to do the hideous slave labor herself rather than hiring servants, except Barbara Ehrenreich), and which is traditionally assigned to women only because women have traditionally been kept in the position of slaves. It's misogyny for men to refuse to do it and stick the women with it, and I suppose Barbara Ehrenreich is right that it's racism for women with money to hire uneducated illegal immigrants to do it, but I'm pretty sure that the Barbara Ehrenreich position is misogyny directed at herself: It is wrong for me to evade suffering, because I am a woman and it is woman's duty to suffer. chthonia9 wrote: << It appears that in their youth, (up to their 30s - Sirius, Snape etc), wizards age similarly to Muggles." >> ats_fhc3 replied: << Actually, it's been discussed, a long time ago, that the reason why Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter look older than they really are, is because in their short lives, they have been through so much stress and tragedy and grief. >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/41510 which I copy here out of sheer niceness: << I am a *bad Catlady* for forgetting to include this in my previous post. I have mentioned before my theory of wizarding age, according to which wizarding folk age the same as Muggles until age 20 (nice round number) or 21 (magically important number) and then half the rate of Muggles. I mentioned it on FictionAlley Park and the extraordinarily brilliant and insightful Minerva McTabby explained her theory, which is harder to compute than mine but seems more accurate: Minerva McTabby wrote: << wizarding folk mature the same as Muggles until their mid-20s. >From then, they age at one-third the rate of Muggles until around the age of 100. After that, they age at half the rate of Muggles. And it's as rare for wizard folk to reach the age of 200 as it is for Muggles to reach 100. >> My examples and her examples: mine: Dumbledore in Cos flashback = 100 // 100 - 20 = 80. // 80 / 2 = 40. // 40 + 20 = 60. // Dumbledore as auburn-haired Transfiguation professor appeared to be 60 to a Muggle. hers: Albus Dumbledore in the diary in CoS, aged 100. 100 - 25 = 75 75 / 3 = 25 25 + 25 = 50 He appears around 50 to Harry through Tom's memories. mine: Dumbledore at 150. // 150 - 20 = 130 // 130 / 2 = 65. //65 + 20 = 85. hers: Dumbledore, aged 150 - if he's been aging at half the Muggle rate for the past 50 years, that adds 25 years to his appearance in the 1940s flashback, making him look about 75 in canon. mine: McGonagall = 70. // 70 - 20 = 50. // 50 / 2 = 25. // 25 + 20 = 45. // McGonagall appears to be 45 to a Muggle, therefore casting Maggie Smith requires willing suspension of disbelief. hers: McGonagall, aged 70. 70 - 25 = 45 45 / 3 = 15 15 + 25 = 40 Fits in with image of McG in the drawings by JKR. >> The drawings by JKR are in this Y!Group's PHOTOS section, http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/lst with the label "Harry Potter and Me" The "previous post" is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/41509 subject: Re: wizard education/birth dearth, baby boom/inheriting magic ats_fhc3 continued: << However, the families we have seen pretty much only have one child. >> Only one child AT A TIME. My calculations give me the idea that witches might well have the change of life around age 70, maybe even 80, and Minerva's give me the idea that witches might have the change of life closer to 90 than 80. If a woman had her first child at age 25 and her second at age 50 and her third at age 75, she would likely never have two children living at home at the same time, never mind being Hogwarts students at the same time. Sseriously overstressed TBAY Eileen wrote: << Who invented Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange? >> JKR. That dark-haired woman who sits in the loathsome witness as if it were a throne IS dead sexy. I had noticed it (and gotten the feeling that schoolboy Severus have therefore been kind of scared of his schoolgirl friend, but certainty not willing to admit that to anyone, especially himself). Eileen, I read all this post and I admired the way you expressed yourself, but I also groaned at the thought that if the TBAYers are going to make me read the SAME TRANSCRIPTS over and over in order to look for little changes that express their opinions, I will NEVER get to bed tonight, sort of like I never got to bed last night, except that I have to go to work tomorrow! From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Mon Dec 9 08:25:54 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:25:54 -0700 (MST) Subject: Hermione according to myth ("was Couples in the Potterverse/Hermione") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47985 > From: "alora " > > This thread is dying out, I think, but didn't I read somewhere > that "Hermione" was a greek/roman mythological woman loved by TWO > men? Someone correct me on this, as I can't remember where or when > I read it. > Mmm, sort of. According to Greek mythology, Hermione was the daughter of Helen of Troy by Helen's original husband, Menelaus. That's about all that's known of her in classic mythology, but she shows up in one of Eurpidies' plays ("Andromache"). According to Eurpidies, when Helen ran off to Troy with Paris, Hermione was left in the care of her aunt, Helen's twin, Klymenestra. The Trojan War lasted for ten years; during that time, Hermione became engaged to Orestes, Klymenestra's son and Hermione's cousin. But when the war ended, Hermione returned to her father's household; Menelaus then married her to Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles. Orestes then murders Neoptolemus and marries Hermione. But I'm not sure whether this is canon mythology, or Euripides making use of poetic licence. It is certainly unclear as to on which sides love was involved, given the political nature of marriages at that time. (it's several years since I read Andromache, I can't remember very clearly) A Hermione also appears in one of Shakespeare's plays, "The Winter's Tale." Her husband Leontes suspects her of infidelity, and--being a jealous sort--condemns her to death. In actuality a maid helps her escape; she remains hidden for ten years, by which point her husband has repented of his jealousy. She then forgives him and they live happily ever after. The name "Hermione" is derived from the name of the Greek God Hermes, who acted as messanger to the other gods, guided dead souls to the underworld, and was himself the god of thieves and commerce. We could find parallels in any of these, I suppose. There could be a duel between Ron and Harry over Hermione, and Ron does have a jealous nature. But truthfully, I think that'd be reading too much into the names. JKR's names do usually have significance, but only rarely (*cough* *Remus Lupin* *cough*) do they do more than suggest at a character's personality. Draco is not actually a dragon, Dumbledore is not actually a bumblebee, and if Minerva McGonagall is the virgin goddess of the hunt I shall be very surprised. I don't think it likely that Ron or Harry will be fighting to the death over Hermione, and I find it even less likely that she'd react to a jealous husband by hiding for ten years and then forgiving him as soon as she was revealed to be alive. If anyone wishes to uses Hermione's name as basis for a shipping argument...well, there've been stranger proofs offered up for ships. *wry gryn* But personally, I cannot read so much significance into her name. I suspect that JKR just fancied it. Ashfae From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 08:40:56 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:40:56 -0000 Subject: SHIP Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <188776944574.20021207175013@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47986 Susanne said:> > I'm not sure how Harry feels about romance after what > happened in GoF. > > I could see him be very closed off and having a hard time > overcoming the trauma of Cedric's death. I think that whatever his head is telling him we cannot ignore the fact that JKR portrays Harry as a very 'normal' sort of boy at at fifteen his hormones will be telling him what to think. I feel that we shall see a lot of teenage fun and high jinks our heroes including more than one 'kiss under the mistletoe' probably with the wrong person! As for H/Hr, JKR has revealed that they are very platonic friends. I think we have seen little of Ginny so far as a deliberate ploy. I mean look how many here she is misleading in to believing that Ginny is unimportant and never likely to be Harry's 'love' interest! I say love with tongue firmly in cheek as I think that for Harry, that realisation will only come at the very end of book seven when Voldemort is destroyed. Diane From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Mon Dec 9 08:54:24 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:54:24 -0700 (MST) Subject: Hagrid, Riddle; SHIP Couples in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47987 > From: Audra1976 at aol.com > > I like the connection you made between Tom Riddle calling Hagrid by his > first name, and the fact that Hagrid asks everyone to call him Hagrid > now, not Rubeus. That could have something to do with it. Whenever > someone calls Hagrid familiarly, Rubeus, some part of him reacts with > mistrust because of Tom Riddle, who may have been Hagrid's first and > only friend, betraying him. Very good idea. This is an interesting notion...but truthfully, I suspect that the main reason Tom called him Rubeus rather than Hagrid in that scene was so that JKR could deliberately build a bit of dramatic tension. This way, Harry got to drop the bombshell of "It was Hagrid! Hagrid opened the Chamber of Secrets fifty years ago!" as the last words of that particular chapter. If he'd been clearly called Hagrid earlier, it wouldn't have had nearly the same effect. (of course we all knew who Rubeus meant anyhow, but it still helped build tension) >From Dian: >>As for H/Hr, JKR has revealed that they are very platonic friends. Is this certain? I was under the impression that all that had been said on the subject of H/Hr was that, when asked about the possibility, JKR responded with "Do you really think they're suited?" To which R/Hr fans immediately shout "No, they aren't!" whereas H/Hr fans shout "Yes, they are!" Has JKR herself stated her own views explicitly? (not trying to start or join in on a ship war--I have my own views, but next to no desire to debate them--just making sure I haven't missed anything) Ashfae From lupinesque at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 11:00:24 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:00:24 -0000 Subject: Who's the baddest of them all? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47988 Actually, it's just who's the badder of the two, but that doesn't sound right. I was in a class yesterday where one of the kids was explaining to the rest that Sauron is even worse than Voldemort. She said that her father (who has read her HP and is reading her LoTR) said so, and seemed to think that settled it. What do you all think? I promise I won't spoil her illusions of paternal infallibility if the consensus here is that Voldemort gets the Most Evil prize. Amy Z ------------------------------------------ The air was soon thick with flying gnomes. --HP and the Chamber of Secrets ------------------------------------------ From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 13:55:45 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:55:45 -0000 Subject: Who's the baddest of them all? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " wrote: > Actually, it's just who's the badder of the two, but that doesn't > sound right. > > I was in a class yesterday where one of the kids was explaining to > the rest that Sauron is even worse than Voldemort. She said that her > father (who has read her HP and is reading her LoTR) said so, and > seemed to think that settled it. What do you all think? I promise I > won't spoil her illusions of paternal infallibility if the consensus > here is that Voldemort gets the Most Evil prize. > Sauron remains off-stage throughout LOTR, so both characters and readers are compelled to fill in the blanks, which thereby paints the middle-earth DL in hues even blacker than he might actually merit. The on-stage Voldemort has to earn his "bad" reputation the old- fashioned way (for the reader at least) - Voldemort has to actually do the heavy lifting of being a heavy: though we first meet him only through hearsay, he soon comes before us as an actual on-page villain: he has to act before us his treacherousness, sliminess, maliciousness, destructiveness, etc. And nobody in Middle-Earth seems afraid to say Sauron's name. - CMC From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 13:57:31 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:57:31 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Riddle; SHIP Couples in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47990 > > From Dian: > >>As for H/Hr, JKR has revealed that they are very platonic friends. > > Is this certain? I was under the impression that all that had been > said on the subject of H/Hr was that, when asked about the possibility, > JKR responded with "Do you really think they're suited?" To which R/Hr > fans immediately shout "No, they aren't!" whereas H/Hr fans shout "Yes, > they are!" Has JKR herself stated her own views explicitly? I'll try and find the link to the quotation for this one. D. Ashfae said: not trying to start or join in on a ship war--I have my own > views, but next to no desire to debate them--just making sure I haven't missed anything > > Ashfae Couldn't agree more. We all have our own ideas and shipper wars are so childish. I'm looking forward to all the fun of them just being teenagers. Wish I could remember that far back! From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Dec 9 14:34:28 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:34:28 +1100 Subject: TBAY: Shadow of the author's hand Message-ID: <007001c29f90$24498460$1e8286cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 47991 Night is falling over St Mungo's. The walls of the building, so polar white by day, are fading into the pearly grey of dusk, except for a single lighted window, staring from the ivy like a square eye. Behind the window, three people are gathered in a luxurious consulting room. One is tall and dark, with a seductive smile and warm, smooth hands. One is draped in bloodstained feathers, through which her eyes glitter and her hands twitch and flex. The third is lying on a red velvet couch, a beatific smile on her face. None of them see the ragged figure slipping into the grounds. None of them hear the rustling of leaves as someone climbs the ivy. The first they know of the spy in their midst is when the full moon conveniently bursts out of the clouds to fill the room with the shadow of a large, menacing hand... The one on the couch shrieks in horror, and clutches at her golden brown hair. The tall dark one shrinks smoothly behind the bookshelves. The one in the feathers immediately suspects an ambush, seizes the nearest heavy object that comes to hand, and hurls it at the window, which shatters, letting in a strong, icy wind. Shards of glass spear the carpet and torn pages flutter over them. The feathered one tiptoes gingerly among them to the window, and looks out. There is no-one in sight. A stray half page flutters on the windowsill, and the feathered one, glancing at it, suddenly realises that her makeshift weapon was none other than Elkins' 9 part manifesto on Crouch... Elkins: >So we have all of >these idealized distant martyr mothers, and they seem to stand in a >kind of contrast to *real* mothers. You know, the people who >actually do 'women's work.' The ones who get down in the trenches of >the actual day-to-day dirty work of mothering, whose sacrifices >entail *living* for their children, rather than just dying for them. Before her very eyes, the words on Elkins' page melt away as she reads. Quivering, she watches as they swirl and reform into new and terrifying words, which she somehow *knows* are the product of the hand at the window... "When musing on martyr mothers, don't forget that there's another mirror tucked away in the corner: the one held up to the life of the author herself. I don't know if authorial issues ever featured in Fallacies through the Ages, and I'm a bit rusty on the minutiae of JKR's life these days, but IIRC JKR's own mother died of MS in 1990, six months after she started writing PS/SS. Which drove her overseas where she had her disastrous first marriage, returned with her daughter, and then slid into depression. As well as the ol' Hermione parallel, she's actually spelled out that the Dementors were a personification of how she felt when depressed, and that the poignancy of the Mirror of Erised scene owed much to her own feelings after her mother died. Moreover, she said in an interview (Guardian Unlimited 18th April 2001) that she would see her mother in the Mirror of Erised and be able to tell her about Jessica and the success of HP. "Could all those idealised martyr mothers be a subconscious reflection of JKR's own instinct that it was her own mother's death that indirectly 'gave life' to her two 'children', that is, Jessica and Harry Potter? Or link in to her own experiences of being mothered or as a mother? As a poor single parent, she would most certainly have had to do the dirty work of mothering, and experience plenty of self-sacrifice. It's not as if she could have a truly rosy-tinted, sanitised image of motherhood. "As for the Crouch/Winky ship, ahaa! I myself long ago suggested that Flitwick might be the product of a liaison between a wizard and a house elf, and even noted that slavery often involves such... extra duties. And Elkins does have a point here. For a man who presents so rigidly law-abiding an image and relishes control, a creature of such dedicated obedience ("House elves does what they is told") must have been very, er, attractive. And perhaps there was more to her longing to be back in master's tent than fear of heights, eh? Well well. Not to mention the interesting contrast between the way Dobby behaved in the face of shame (shutting his ears in the oven, etc.) and the way Winky did (grieving in a more human way, crying, drinking, beating the floor, etc.). The contrast between a whipping boy and a rejected lover, even? Hmmmm. Wasn't sure what the other answer to the Sphinx's riddle was, but the one provided does leave open a door for allusions to W.E.B.C.R.A.W.L.E.R.S. (When Empty, Bereaved Crouch Required Affection, Winky Lavished Eager Romantic Services). "And Ships, I noticed that while Elkins has kindly taken the LANDLUBBERS out for an airing, no-one has ever acronymised SHIPPERS! As a devotee of Ships myself (albeit of the more twisted and obscure variety), I felt this gaping hole had to be filled with Sentimental Hearts Into Potential Passion, Enchantment and Romantic Speculations." The page suddenly bursts into flame in the feathered hand, which drops it abruptly to the floor. As the feathered person backs away in alarm, a breeze catches the remaining charred sliver, which traces the following strange word on the carpet: Tabouli (dipping a supportive toe in the Bay in a rare fit of lurking) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wind3213 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 14:42:22 2002 From: wind3213 at hotmail.com (Shauna ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:42:22 -0000 Subject: Who's the baddest of them all? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " > wrote: > > Actually, it's just who's the badder of the two, but that doesn't > > sound right. > > > > I was in a class yesterday where one of the kids was explaining to > > the rest that Sauron is even worse than Voldemort. She said that > her > > father (who has read her HP and is reading her LoTR) said so, and > > seemed to think that settled it. What do you all think? I promise > I > > won't spoil her illusions of paternal infallibility if the > consensus > > here is that Voldemort gets the Most Evil prize. Voldemort, although probably as near to 'evil' as a human can get, is still human. Some say there's "not enough human left in him" to die, but the fact of the matter is, he was once a child, he was capable of love - even if he never actually did love - and for a little while, at least, he was deserving of sympathy. Sauron is a god. He has been 'evil' for well over 10,000 years. He is responsible for the corruption and/or demise of several civilizations. We see plenty of examples of Saruman's evil - imprisoning Gandalf, ordering the murder of the Fellowship sans hobbits, his dictatorship of the shire - but Saruman is pure peanuts to Sauron. If you're interested in details, read about how Sauron corrupted the kings of Numenor and caused the country's utter destruction. Read about how he disguised himself to Celebrimbor when making the rings, and how he tortured the poor elf when he stood against him. You think Voldemort is bad form Imperio'ing people? When Sauron turns the lesser ring-bearers into wraiths, he not only controls them, but he does so completely. He tortures and seduces them into *wanting* to be enslaved by him. There's a difference, yes, in that JRRT and JKR each set up different moral universes, but really, there's no question that Sauron is the 'bigger baddie'. ~ Shauna From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 9 15:12:10 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 15:12:10 -0000 Subject: Who's the baddest of them all? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z " > wrote: > > Actually, it's just who's the badder of the two, but that doesn't > > sound right. > > > > I was in a class yesterday where one of the kids was explaining to > > the rest that Sauron is even worse than Voldemort. She said that > her > > father (who has read her HP and is reading her LoTR) said so, and > > seemed to think that settled it. What do you all think? I promise > I > > won't spoil her illusions of paternal infallibility if the > consensus > > here is that Voldemort gets the Most Evil prize. Sauron hands down. It's like comparing some random evil guy to Satan. Sauron was pretty much angelic, to start with. CMC wrote: >And nobody in Middle-Earth seems afraid to say Sauron's name. But wait, JKR, imho, took the idea of Voldemort being nameless from LotR. The Nameless One, the Dark Lord, the Nameless Shadow, was what the people of Gondor called Sauron. Not 'Sauron.' Ever. Eileen From heidit at netbox.com Mon Dec 9 15:15:30 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:15:30 -0500 Subject: SHIP Couples in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <031f01c29f95$d3df3780$0301a8c0@Frodo> No: HPFGUIDX 47994 It was asked yesterday (but I've misplaced the name of the asker) > > > > Is this certain? I was under the impression that all that had > been > > said on the subject of H/Hr was that, when asked about the > possibility, > > JKR responded with "Do you really think they're suited?" To which > R/Hr > > fans immediately shout "No, they aren't!" whereas H/Hr fans > shout "Yes, > > they are!" Has JKR herself stated her own views explicitly? She's said a few things in interviews: Q: Dear Ms. Rowling, I'd like to ask if there would be a lot of romances between the characters in the upcoming books? JKR: Good question. I'm having so much fun writing Book 4 because for the first time Harry, Ron, and Hermione are starting to recognize boys and girls as boys and girls. Everyone is in love with the wrong people. Let no one say my books lack realism. (The above shows that I was wrong over the weekend when I said that in Book 4 everyone was "falling" in love - she didn't use the word falling, she used the phrase "in love with" - it doesn't change my arguments, IMHO, but I wanted to be clear that I was wrong. Do I get LOON points for catching myself out?) The above was from 2000 And in a 1999 National Press Club Author's Luncheon (right after the release of PoA) she was asked: Q: Do Harry and Hermione have a date? And she replied: JKR: A: No, they're very platonic friends. But I won't answer for anyone else... nudge, nudge, wink, wink. I have seen many R/H SHIPpers argue that the "they're very platonic friends" applies to the entire series - books 4 through 7 and beyond - because she didn't say otherwise. However, it seems reasonable to argue that she was answering specifically about Book 4, and the "nudge nudge wink wink" applies to a number of couples - on reading GoF I immediately thought she was refering to Fred and Angelina, although I've seen it posited that it was a reference to Hagrid and Madame Maxime, or simply JKR being her usual cryptic self. Heidi, finding quotes via google since 2000 From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Mon Dec 9 15:34:23 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:34:23 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's the baddest of them all? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47995 > From: "Caius Marcius " > > And nobody in Middle-Earth seems afraid to say Sauron's name. > That's largely because they think he's been dead for...how long is it? one thousand, two thousand years? Very long time. Perhaps at the beginning, they were afraid to say his name. And they are afraid of his language, the language of Mordor; though perhaps that's only sensible, given that it seems to have a power of its own. It's difficult to make a comparison between the two. As Shauna poined out, Sauron remains offstage for all the books, whereas Voldemort is certainly present. Voldemort's cruelty is enacted on a smaller scale, and we see it on a smaller scale, and therefore it hits home much more pointedly; Neville's parents were tortured into insanity, and they weren't alone. Countless deaths, fear and paranoia and pain all over the place. On the other hand, while Voldemort is often called the most evil wizard in the world, we haven't seen much evidence for how he affected other countries. How much influence did he have outside of Britain? Obviously some (witness Karkaroff), but how far did his domain spread? In contrast, Sauron is/was feared *everywhere*. Again, as Shauna pointed out, this is largely because he's been around for so very long. He's not a god exactly, not as I recall, but he's definitely been around for thousands of years, and as the books themselves demonstrate, is nearly impossible to kill. He doesn't bother with torturing people (though his minions do); he kills them or steals their souls entirely. The scale of his evil is far, far greater; in some ways, that makes it more difficult for us to see it, because we spend the books up close and personal to a few particular characters' views. But I'd definitely say that of the two, Voldemort is to be preferred. Voldemort has several weakneses, and makes mistakes; it's at least possible to anticipate and fight him. Whereas Sauron has only one chink in his armor, and a damned difficult one to get at. All Middle Earth can really do is hold him off as best they can, until the Ring is destroyed; that's their only hope of getting rid of him. I'd rather fight Voldemort, thanks; at least I'd have some small chance! Ashfae From divaclv at aol.com Mon Dec 9 17:14:25 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:14:25 -0000 Subject: Naming Names (WAS: Who's the baddest of them all?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucky_kari " wrote: > CMC wrote: > >And nobody in Middle-Earth seems afraid to say Sauron's name. > > But wait, JKR, imho, took the idea of Voldemort being nameless from > LotR. The Nameless One, the Dark Lord, the Nameless Shadow, was what > the people of Gondor called Sauron. Not 'Sauron.' Ever. > Actually, the idea is much older than Tolkien as well. The notion that names have power--for good or for ill--crops up in various folklores. In particluar, one superstition held that to say Satan's name aloud was to invoke his presence. This is where the phrase "Speak of the devil (and he shall appear)" comes from. As with Erised and Galadriel's Mirror, both Rowling and Tolkien are drawing on traditions which predate them both. ~Christi From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 9 17:20:54 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:20:54 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - The H Word (3 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47997 "Oh, come on, Eileen! You know perfectly well that he was a hypocrite. You must do, surely. I mean, *everybody* knows that about Crouch. Charis knows that and Charis likes Crouch. Cindy knows it. You must know it. Now why," says Elkins. "Why would you never have adressed the issue of hypocricy in any of your Crouch apologetics?" "Crouch wasn't a hypocrite!" says Eileen stolidy. "He use ill-advised means, but his ends were good. He wanted to save the wizarding world from Voldemort." "Really, we'll see about that," says Elkins. "But I must confess, I'm very interested in why you've never brought up the "H" word at all, in relation to your dear Barty Crouch. Not even to defend him from it. Why, again, would that be?" "Elkins," says Eileen. "You've done me enough damage already on this list. You've singled me out as the most bent, twisted warp person here (after yourself.) You've had me confess to torturing my dolls. You guessed - I don't know how you did it - that I'd dreamt about Crouch sending me mercilessly to Azkaban. You told everyone I liked to be hurt. You inspired me to narrate my regrettable short turn as a victim-turned-bully. I'm the abnormal TBAYer with major issues in the eyes of the list because of you, and now you want to know why I've never once brought up the "H" word in relation to Crouch? Have a little pity, woman." "I only pity fictional characters," says Elkins grimly. "Why? "Well then, that'd be because I'm the most frightful hypocrite myself," says Eileen breezily. "Hypocricy really is my tragic flaw. I've been acting every day of my life since I was very little. I mean, half my aquaintances think my political opinions are far-right and the other half think they're far left. And if you'd been brought up in the conflicted political atmosphere I was, you'd see how you learn to do that, to not mention certain things in some company, and to stress them in others. To be, as C.S. Lewis put it, "loyal to no-one, and a traitor to everyone." Eileen heaves a sigh of regret. "It's not healthy living a double life, but I've done it for years in many things. I was the good kid, the innocent, naive, uncorrupted child, but in truth I knew more about any mature subject than any kid should. I told you I read the Gulag Archipelago under my sheets as a kid. And a lot of other stuff too. I believe passionately in fair play, and never indulge in it. I don't think the means justify the end, but I've always used unsavoury means to reach my ends. And my ends have been - still are - very selfish." Everyone looks shocked. "Yeah," says Eileen. "I'm not proud of it. I'll have to beat it, or it'll beat me. But you can see why I've avoided the "H" word. Because that's looking into the mirror, isn't it?" "So," says Cindy. "It's not just Comfort-Hurt and Hurt-Comfort. You... identify with Crouch?" "Yes," says Eileen softly. "Then, let's talk about it," says Elkins. " Tough and Steely Livian Crouch? It's his facade, his masquerade, his public face. But it's not really *him.* And as for Crouch as Brutus...well!" Eileen clenches the railings tightly. "Because you see," says Elkins, "unlike Crouch, Brutus really *did* have his sons put to death. What he did *not* do, was to sentence his sons to death while the eyes of the public were on him, only then to turn around and smuggle them out from under the axes of the lictors to lock them away in his wine cellar one year later, when nobody was watching him." Eileen begins to cough violently. "Are you all right?" asks Cindy. "It's just too funny," says Eileen, looking like she's going to die from laughter. "We should rewrite Livy. We've already got the tragic story of the Lombottommi, and now the re-worked Brutus story. What's next: Peter Pettigrew was only imitating Mucius Scaevola? So, I admit. Crouch is no Brutus. He's playing Brutus. Crouch probably read Livy from an early age, as I did. I was a teenage Livian you know." "Really?" asks Cindy. "Oh yeah," says Eileen. "I desperately wanted to come across as tough and steely then. You know, the "H" word. I even memorized large portions of Macaulay's "Lays of Ancient Rome." "Heaven help him, quoth Lars Porsena, and bring him safe to shore! For such a gallant feat of arms has ne'er been seen before!" So, if Crouch was playing at being a Livian, I know where he was coming from. I played at being a Livian for several years." Cindy shakes her head in disbelief. "And well, being a Livian, believe it or not, has its advantages," says Eileen. "That's how I got people to stop bullying me. You don't bully people who dramatically present themselves as tough and steely. Of course, on the other hand, my short turn as the victim-turned-bully was at the height of my Livian infatuation." "ToughAndSteelyLivian!Crouch," says Elkins "Only serves to reinforce and strengthen our appreciation of his moral *hypocricy.* JKR plays much the same game with Livian Crouch as she does with Ends-Over-Means Crouch, doesn't she? I think that JKR *cheats.*" "Oh now you've done it, Elkins," says Eileen. "You just can't stop attacking JKR." "Just watch me," says Elkins. First she uses Crouch to encourage the reader to consider the value of prioritizing the ends over the means. But then she stacks the deck against that position by revealing her proponent of ends-over-means to be, in the end, a self-interested hypocrite." "Not fair at all," says Eileen indignantly. "When you have a moral dilemna like that, it's just not fair to solve it by walking around it. It'd be like if we discovered at the end of "Les Miserables" that Javert was actually a corrupt scumbag who was only chasing Valjean because he'd get a promotion for it. And... Wait a second, I admit Crouch is a hypocrite, but where do you get the complete self-interest?" "Did you just call Crouch a corrupt scumbag?" asks Cindy. "No!" snaps Eileen. "Very simple," says Elkins. "The question is whether Crouch is self-sacrificing or self-serving? Is he a hard-liner, or is he a hypocrite? I think that he's a little bit of both, myself. But mainly the latter." "And we'll wait in vain for you to elaborate on the former," says Eileen. I wrote, > > Nobility in tragedy also refers to virtue, however, and Crouch has > > that as well going for him. Tragic heroes do terrible things and > > Crouch does terrible things, but they have a lot of things going for > > them as well. Crouch is on the good side. He fights against > > Voldemort and protects people against him. He does this at great > > risk to himself. You're going to rip me to shreds for that post, aren't you?" "Not entirely," says Elkins. "You see, you did write out a nice summary of his fatal flaw. Look. > > I see here the tragic flaw asserting itself. The belief that people > > should do as he disposed him, that he did not have the > > responsibility to treat them as people first and foremost. . . . > > Barty Crouch Sr. did not let love (any of the four loves) dictate > > his relationships with others. He used people and therein lies his > > downfall. "I agree.If I were to try to identify Crouch's hamartia, I would have to cite his unwillingness or inability to recognize the existence of other people as independent entities, and his corresponding disregard for their volition and their autonomy." "Elkins agreed with me!" says Eileen. "Cindy, did you hear that?" "Wait for the 'but," says Cindy. "But," says Elkins. "Awww," says Eileen in a hurt tone. "But if Eileen is right about Crouch's noble stature, we'd expect to see Crouch as having good motives. As doing what he does to protect the wizarding world from Dark Wizardry." "That sounds reasonable," says Cindy appreciatively. "And he does!" cries Eileen. "He ordered very harsh measures against Voldemort's supporters. Doesn't that sound like he was trying to save the wizarding world from Dark Wizardry? " "Crouch's acts of disregard for others," said Elkins bitterly, "always seem to me to be taken to protect Crouch himself, or to bring him some other form of personal advantage, satisfaction or benefit." "Elkins!" "Barty Crouch, the fanatical anti-Voldemort hardliner does not exist," says Elkins. "He's a figment of the wizarding populace's imagination, of yours, as well. What sort of foolish young girl are you to be taken in by his act?" "It's your type of person," says Eileen, "that lets the Death Eaters win! Did you know that, Elkins?" "Crouch isn't a Tragic Hero," says Elkins. "in order to fulfill the criteria of the archetypical tragic hero, I think that a character really needs to exhibit some degree of purity of motive, and I'm just not seeing that in Crouch Sr." "He fought the Death-Eaters to save the wizarding world," repeats Eileen again. "How do you know his motives were impure? Been listening to Barty Jr. recently?" "We'll touch on that in our next post. But you have to emotionaly detach yourself from your fixation on Barty Crouch Sr. as a tragic hero," Elkins looks kindly at her. "A character who consistently falls into error while acting in accordance with self-interest can certainly be sympathetic. He can be likable. He can inspire pathos. He can even possess a kind of wild heroic grandeur, like some of Shakespeare's better villains do. I think that you can make a very strong case for Crouch as a sympathetic shades-of-grey redeemed-in-death villain. Think about it." "But I want him as a tragic hero!" wails Eileen, stealing an interested glance at SympatheticShadesOfGreyRedeemedInDeathVillain!Crouch. "And I'll defend Crouch the tragic hero to the death, if needs be!" "You have a Gryffindor and a Slytherin persona at work in your life, don't you?" asks Cindy. "How did you guess?" ********************************************************************** > > REFERENCES: > > This post is continued from part two. It is primarily a response > to message #45402 ("Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero"), but also references > or quotes message numbers 37476 ("The CRAB CUSTARD Manifesto"), > 37574, 37769, 43447, and 45693. > > Link to "The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons:" > http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/brutus.jpg > > For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, > visit Hypothetic Alley at > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From wind3213 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 17:58:58 2002 From: wind3213 at hotmail.com (Shauna ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:58:58 -0000 Subject: Who's the baddest of them all? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47998 > That's largely because they think he's been dead for...how long is > it? one thousand, two thousand years? Very long time. Perhaps at the > beginning, they were afraid to say his name. And they are afraid of his > language, the language of Mordor; though perhaps that's only sensible, > given that it seems to have a power of its own. One thing to keep in mind (without going into too much of a tangent on LotR) is that while for humans and hobbits the 'death' of Sauron was thousands of years ago, many of the elves were alive before Sauron fell. So you have two different dynamics - for the mortals, it's an ancient evil that should not be named, but for the elves, it is a power they're more familiar with. I think the latter is more similar to the Harry Potter dynamic, but it's through the eyes of the former that the story is told. > He's not a god exactly, not as I recall I meant in more of a pantheistic sense - not as an all-powerful Christian-type god. He's immortal, extremely strong, and has all sorts of nifty powers - reading minds, changing shapes, making pretty ring-wraiths... > > But I'd definitely say that of the two, Voldemort is to be > preferred. Voldemort has several weakneses, and makes mistakes; it's at > least possible to anticipate and fight him. Yes. Exactly. Sometimes people forget that they didn't *really* win. If Gollum hadn't interfered at the last moment, by pure chance (or divine grace), then Sauron would have won, and that would have been it. Somehow I doubt that's what JKR has in mind for the Harry Potter series. I think Harry will defeat him in a more classic way - through the discovery of a weakness inherent in his evil. ~ Shauna From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 18:20:52 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:20:52 -0000 Subject: SHIP Couples in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <031f01c29f95$d3df3780$0301a8c0@Frodo> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 47999 There are endless quotations from JKR chats that shippers could interpret in whatever way they want. I am sure we can all put our own construction on the outcome. For what it is worth the following links are worthwhile. Did JKR once hint that Harry would eventually change his mind about romantically liking either Hermione or Ginny? Answer : February 2000 Scholastic Chat http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm "Is Harry Potter ever going to fall in love with Hermione or is he going to fall in love with Ginny Weasley? In Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny. However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind. ;-)" But she also said that Harry and Hermione were "very platonic friends," didn't she? That one was in the October 1999 National Press Club Luncheon. You have to download an audio file; it's near the end, at about 26:34. http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/1999/991020.jkrowling.html ("Do Harry and Hermione have a date? No, they are very platonic friends, but I won't answer for anyone else, nudge nudge wink wink.") And the bit where she asked, "As for Harry and Hermione... d'you really think they're suited?" That one was in the May 2000 AOL Chat. http://www.iharrypotter.net/jkrowling/chats/aol.html Now, about H/G-- where's the place where she said that Harry not noticing Ginny is "just a boy thing"? That was in the December 2000 Time Interview. http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20001225/poy_rowling_insert. html And finally... that session where JKR answered the questions about R/H and about H/G? Red Nose Day Chat http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript3.shtml "Will Harry ever notice the long-suffering Ginny Weasley? You'll see... poor Ginny, eh? "Does Hermione like Ron as more than a friend? The answer to that is in Goblet of Fire!" As to whether JKR is deliberately giving us red herrings, well... Diane From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 18:41:20 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:41:20 -0000 Subject: The Game with Brooms (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48000 The esteemed author of Quidditch Through the Ages in his first filk! The Game with Brooms (to the tune of The Game of Love by Wayne Fortana) Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page15.htm Dedicated to Gail B. THE SCENE: KENILWORTHY WHISP arrives at Hogwarts to lecture on the game of Wizards. All four house teams are present (in Quidditch robes) to serve as CHORUS WHISP (& CHORUS) The purpose of a Snitch is to dodge a Seeker, And the purpose of a Seeker is to grab a Snitch, So come on players today's the day, come on players let's play (The game with brooms, brooms, ba ba ba ba ba brooms) It started long ago in the marshes of Queerditch And now you can believe it's the one game for me So come on players today we'll fly come players let's try (The game with brooms, brooms, ba ba ba ba ba brooms) Come on Bats, and Appleby Arrows Come on Kenmare and ol' Montrose Holyhead, Puddlemere, Tornados Play the game with brooms! The purpose of Quaffles is to score ya ten points And the purpose of Keepers is to stop those points So come on Keepers play keep away, chase on Chasers and play (The game with brooms, brooms, ba ba ba ba ba brooms) The purpose of Bludgers is to cream the players And the purpose of the Beaters is to whack Bludgers So come on Beaters let's beat today, teammates, take it away (The game with brooms, brooms, ba ba ba ba ba brooms) Come on Cannons, do it for Chudley Wimbourne and the Pride of grand Portree Falmouth, Wigtown, Caerphilly Play the game with brooms! The game with brooms, (brooms), brooms, (brooms), ba ba ba ba ba brooms The game with brooms, (brooms) ,brooms, (brooms), ba ba ba ba ba brooms (The game with brooms, baby, the game of ba ba ba ba brooms) (The game with brooms, baby, the game of ba ba ba ba brooms) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Mon Dec 9 18:47:58 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (Beth Loubet) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:47:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Couples in the Potterverse/Hermione References: <1039421843.2373.23163.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003901c29fb3$824de2e0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> No: HPFGUIDX 48001 From: "alora " >This thread is dying out, I think, but didn't I read somewhere >that "Hermione" was a greek/roman mythological woman loved by TWO >men? Someone correct me on this, as I can't remember where or when >I read it. > >So, if Hermione is possibly loved by two men, will it be Harry and >Ron? And when I say loved, I don't necessarily mean romantic love. >I think Harry might love her as a sister....as for Ron, it would >have to be more. I don't know if he is Mr. Right or Mr. Wrong. I >think it remains to be seen. http://www.in2greece.com/english/historymyth/mythology/names/hermione.htm Hermione -- Daughter of Helen of Troy and King Menelaus of Sparta. She married Achilles' son Neoptolemus, but when Orestes killed him in a fight over her (she was originally engaged to him) she became his wife instead. Together they had the son Tisamenus, who was to rule in Mycenae. I would tend to agree with your loose interpretation of "loved", rather than a strict interpretation of the myth. Heavens, I HOPE that Harry doesn't have to kill Ron to get Hermione in the end. Just CAN'T see that happening. Hmm... OTOH, Ron and Draco? No, no, I think you're right. It's Ron and Harry, but in a platonic way. For one of them, at least. bel From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Mon Dec 9 18:57:47 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (Beth Loubet) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:57:47 -0600 Subject: Hagrid's wand References: <1039421843.2373.23163.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003d01c29fb4$e06fd3f0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> No: HPFGUIDX 48002 Something's been bothering me about the Hagrid and Harry sequence toward the beginning of PS/SS, and I just couldn't put my finger on it. I finally got it watching the movie again... If it takes a wand to get into Diagon Alley from the courtyard behind the Leaky Cauldron, why has no one ever questioned the fact that Hagrid gets through regularly by himself? Don't you think SOMEone would have noticed over the years that he doesn't ask for help getting through the portal? And I think it's mentioned somewhere in the books that you have to use a wand to get through. Yes? (No books with me at work, alas.) bel From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 23:52:13 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 23:52:13 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard fertility (Re: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48003 Just an idea thought regarding both Snape and Lupin, but they must both be very young for such important posts and some of their pupils might end up with crushes on them. Now, a charm of some kind might just make them less attractive to young females to avoid scandal. On a side note, there was a recent scandal somewhere when a teacher was in trouble for sleeping with his student, so something to prevent that might be a wise precaution. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dorigen at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 04:28:39 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:28:39 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard fertility (Re: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48004 >Janet Anderson wrote: >"Which may mean that while Harry's year (and older) may have more >only children, more recent years (like the McCreeveys) would have >more than one." > >Just like to point out that the McCreeveys (or is it just Creevys? >i'm too lazy to look) are muggle-born, and therefore, not involoved >with the V-Mort Wars. It's Creeveys. I remembered it wrong. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From dorigen at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 16:07:23 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:07:23 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Couples in the Potterverse/Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48005 chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com said: > >This thread is dying out, I think, but didn't I read somewhere >that "Hermione" was a greek/roman mythological woman loved by TWO >men? Someone correct me on this, as I can't remember where or when >I read it. I think you may mean "Hermia," who, in *A Midsummer Night's Dream,* was loved by two men -- the one she loved, and the one her father wanted her to marry. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From dorigen at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 16:13:22 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:13:22 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House-Elves and the Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48006 Sherry said: >And I think that most wizards who have House Elves take them so for granted >that they would never consider them a threat. A surreptitiously freed (or >rebellious, like Dobby) House Elf would make an outstanding spy. > Yes. On either side. The fake Moody had no trouble using Dobby as a cat's paw to pass information to Harry, and he didn't even need to use a spell to do it. Suppose someone used the Imperius Curse on one of the Hogwarts house-elves? They may, for all we know, be immune to it, but then again they may not. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 19:05:21 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:05:21 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's the baddest of them all? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48007 Well, if we're listing other bad guys who are a match for Voldi... The Master, From Doctor Who. Cunning, charisma, and thoughly evil. Balor. From Age of Misrule, the ultimate evil. Quinn Dexter, Dark Messiah, from Night's Dawn Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Mon Dec 9 19:12:13 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (Beth Loubet) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:12:13 -0600 Subject: TBAY/SHIP: Crouch - Winky As Wife and Mother (9 of 9) Message-ID: <004801c29fb6$e4948c80$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> No: HPFGUIDX 48008 Elkins says, re: Barty Crouch, Sr.: >"Was he *ever* maritally faithful? Isn't >'disappointing' rather a stereotypical word for an aristocratic >young man to use to refer to a father who...well, you know. Who >cheats on his wife? Who does the *help?*" > >"You are a very sick woman, Elkins." > >"Crouch Jr's treatment of his father's body suggests to my mind >that to some extent he felt that he was avenging his mother," says >Elkins. "Ahem." Elkins and Eileen look up in surprise. A small rift has opened in the air a few feet above their heads. A blonde woman sticks her head through the hole and waves cheerily. "Hallo! I'm not sure that I'm really ready for TBAY, but I did want to ask a question. I'm Bel, by the way." Elkins and Eileen wave, obviously a bit startled. "I was just wondering -- in light of everything you've said about Crouch, Sr. and Winky, isn't it also suggestive that Barty, Jr. changes his father's body into a bone? Maybe you have to know American slang for that to be obvious, but changing his father's body into something that's a metaphor for... well, you know... male anatomy... certainly suggests a few things to me about the way he felt about his father and his father's behaviour. It certainly ties in to the reasons Elkins is postulating for Junior's disappointment, doesn't it? "I've always wondered, though, if Crouch, Sr. being turned into a bone just before Voldemort needs "the bone of the father" doesn't tie together somehow... "Well. Pardon my intrusive ramblings. Carry on!" Bel waves again, smiling, and the rift disappears with a "Pop!". Elkins and Eileen look at one another, shrug, and continue their conversation. (Thanks for letting me butt in. ) bel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 19:13:41 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:13:41 +0000 Subject: (FILK) I'm Always Scheming Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48009 I'm Always Scheming (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _I'm Only Sleeping_ by the Beatles_) Off their _Revolver_ album Listen to a Midi here: http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/morrissey/612/b-midi.htm Dedicated to the MAGIC DISHWASHER Defense Team Voldemort (Dumbledore): Getting ready for a confrontation Making my preparations With my faithful servant at Hogwarts All his plans I will thwart (I will thwart) A terrorist war 'gainst Dumbledore He will loose because I'm always scheming Dumbledore (Voldemort): Don't be fooled by my eccentric manner Behind this smile I'm a planner Organizing things behind the scenes Things are not as they seem (As they seem) We tricked Voldemort; the potion's flawed Can't let him win so I'm always scheming Both V & D Singing Together in Harmony: Keeping an eye on the enemy's every movement Voldemort: Sending out spies Both: Gathering all sorts of information Making our calculations We can't decide what's truth or lies 'Cause the other side Is always scheming Keeping an eye on the enemy's every movement Dumbledore: Reading the signs Anticipating what's his strategy All is done secretly Voldemort (Dumbledore): The taste of victory it will be sweet When I cause his defeat (His defeat) Both: It's a deadly game we both are playin' Where knowledge is power We're always scheming -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From rlpenar at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 19:25:30 2002 From: rlpenar at yahoo.com (R. Penar ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:25:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand In-Reply-To: <003d01c29fb4$e06fd3f0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48010 NO book at work for me either, but I don't recall it being specifically mentioned that you need a wand. The only time I remember them talking about the brick wall to get through was when Harry & Hagrid went into the pub through the regular London "muggle" entrance. Perhaps it is different if you enter through the wizarding world? This would explain how Hagrid continued to get through, as the only time we have seen Hagrid in the Muggle world is in PS/SS. In addition, Hagrid is generally out doing Hogwarts-related business, so people may not pay attention quite as closely and think that the Hogwarts connection may entitle him to special circumstances or something. And, even if you did need a wand each time, we all know that Dumbledore turns a blind eye to Hagrid's use of magic, so maybe it's just one of those *wink, wink* things.... --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beth Loubet" wrote: > Something's been bothering me about the Hagrid and Harry sequence toward the beginning of PS/SS, and I just couldn't put my finger on it. I finally got it watching the movie again... > > If it takes a wand to get into Diagon Alley from the courtyard behind the Leaky Cauldron, why has no one ever questioned the fact that Hagrid gets through regularly by himself? > > Don't you think SOMEone would have noticed over the years that he doesn't ask for help getting through the portal? And I think it's mentioned somewhere in the books that you have to use a wand to get through. Yes? (No books with me at work, alas.) > > bel From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Dec 9 19:27:56 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:27:56 -0800 Subject: SHIP greek myth Hermione + HP [HPforGrownups] Re: Couples in the Potterverse/Hermione In-Reply-To: <003901c29fb3$824de2e0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> References: <1039421843.2373.23163.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003901c29fb3$824de2e0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> Message-ID: <15926296624.20021209112756@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48011 Hi, Monday, December 09, 2002, 10:47:58 AM, Beth wrote: > Heavens, I HOPE that Harry > doesn't have > to kill Ron to get Hermione in the end. Or it might be the other way around . But honestly, the whole myth is so convoluted, with Orestes having gone temporarily insane, and Hermione's father giving her to Neoptolemus instead. Later Orestes overcame his temporary insanity and came back to claim his promised prize. Not even considering the deeds both men had committed before getting together with Hermione. Makes Voldemort sound almost nice . I'm pretty sure there wasn't much love involved, anyhow, as both men had either already another wife or a concubine on the side (I'll have to find a source for this to post a link to, but remember it from reading the greek myths as a teenager). I tend to think that we won't see many similarities to this in HP, where according to JKR the romance will be kept light and humorous, not too gritty. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From voldemort at tut.by Mon Dec 9 19:54:33 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Sasha HP) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 21:54:33 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's wand / No Other Wizarding Schools? In-Reply-To: <003d01c29fb4$e06fd3f0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> References: <1039421843.2373.23163.m12@yahoogroups.com> <003d01c29fb4$e06fd3f0$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> Message-ID: <11911941269.20021209215433@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48012 Greetings! > Beth wrote: BL> Something's been bothering me about the Hagrid and Harry BL> sequence toward the beginning of PS/SS, and I just BL> couldn't put my finger on it. I finally got it watching BL> the movie again... BL> If it takes a wand to get into Diagon Alley from the BL> courtyard behind the Leaky Cauldron, why has no one ever BL> questioned the fact that Hagrid gets through regularly BL> by himself? BL> Don't you think SOMEone would have noticed over the BL> years that he doesn't ask for help getting through the BL> portal? And I think it's mentioned somewhere in the BL> books that you have to use a wand to get through. Yes? BL> (No books with me at work, alas.) BL> bel Well, he was forbidden to use it, not to have it, eh? He didn't even conceal the fact that he had the remains of it. However I got the impression that it was not the wand that opened the doorway to Diagon Alley, but touching the right brick in the wall. This has however brought me to another thought. It is generally accepted that many wizarding children do not attend Hogwarts and are taught by whoever they live with or work for. Nice this might seem, but then we should remember that when Hagrid was expelled, he was forbidden to do magic at all. Hence, if you live in Britain and want to do magic legally, you MUST attend Hogwarts. There is no other way around it (surely Hagrid would use it if it existed). Nope, we must accept the fact that ALL magic children of year 11 come to Hogwarts or some other school OUTSIDE Britain. Bringing us to the number of 40 children per Britain per year. And (again) bringing up the question of Wizarding Reproduction Rate. "If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out." Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 9 20:23:42 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:23:42 -0000 Subject: FILK - You're a Mean One, Mr. Crouch. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48013 Elkins stalks on stage, an exquisitively nasty look on her face, and takes the microphone from a petrified Eileen. You're a mean one, Mr. Crouch. You really are a heel. You're as sexy as a beach crab. You're as upright as an eel. Mr. Crouch. You're a Coriolanus With a Brutian feel. You're a monster, Mr. Crouch. Your heart's an empty hole. Your acts are all ambition, Your motives black as coal, Mr. Crouch. I wouldn't mind, Crouch, if the author'd damned your soul. You're a vile one, Mr. Crouch. You've a Basiliskan smile. You have all the tender sweetness Of some armadillo bile. Mr. Crouch. Given the choice between the two of you I'd take the armadillo bile. You're a foul one, Mr. Crouch. You're an ever-so-evil git. Your closet's full of skeletons. Your love as pure as grit. Mr. Crouch. The one word that best describes you, is, and I quote: 'HY-PO-CRITE" You're a rotter, Mr. Crouch. You did anything for fame. You were sleeping with your house-elf. You forgot poor Percy's name. Mr. Crouch. Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing, with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable, Mangled up in tangled up blame. ------------------------------------------------------ Eileen, who is going to have to make up for this by writing a more Crouch-sympathetic FILK, and notes that the Grinch got a Redemption scene as well From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 20:39:14 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:39:14 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Attendance Not Required for Legal Magic (WAS: Hagrid's wand...) In-Reply-To: <11911941269.20021209215433@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48014 Sasha HP wrote: > It is generally accepted that many wizarding children do > not attend Hogwarts and are taught by whoever they live with > or work for. Nice this might seem, but then we should > remember that when Hagrid was expelled, he was forbidden to > do magic at all. Hence, if you live in Britain and want to do magic > legally, you MUST attend Hogwarts. There is no other way > around it (surely Hagrid would use it if it existed). Now me: I think Hagrid was forbidden to do magic as a condition of his expulsion, not because he didn't complete his Hogwarts education. His wand was snapped (and then the pieces returned to him - go figure!). I believe home-schooled wizards can do magic legally, as they presumably have intact wands to work with. ~Phyllis From the.gremlin at verizon.net Mon Dec 9 20:52:37 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:52:37 -0000 Subject: Crush on Teachers was: Wizard Fertility was:Wizard Lifespan vs. Muggle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48015 Chris wrote: "Just an idea thought regarding both Snape and Lupin, but they must both be very young for such important posts and some of their pupils might end up with crushes on them. Now, a charm of some kind might just make them less attractive to young females to avoid scandal." I'm going to assume that you've been confused by the the recent thread on why Snape is appealing to women. Read: Snape is *not* physically attractive. However, it might be possible that there are some older students who find the same things Snape's fans find appealing, and then develop a crush on him from there. However, I think the charm worked too well on Snape. As in Lupin's case, he *was* young, but he looked older. The description of Lupin is that his hair has grey in it, and he looks ill and exhausted. And for some reason, my mental image has him wearing glasses. It is more likely for students to develop crushes on Lupin then it is on Snape. However, perhaps some older students had crushes on Lupin, and we just didn't hear about it. Harry was in his third year at the time, and doesn't really start noticing the opposite sex until the end of the year, when he sees Cho Chang. A lot of the female students had crushes on Lockhart, too, and no one seemed to have a problem with that. DD probably knew that a lot of the female students would find him attractive, but he didn't seem to do anything about it. Maybe he just figured to let nature run it's course. And no one said that the teachers were finding the students attractive (unless you're a Snape/Hermione shipper). -Acire, who wonders how this post got so long, and wants to know if anyone has ever paired Lupin with anybody. From Lynx412 at aol.com Mon Dec 9 20:17:33 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:17:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's wand / No Other Wizarding Schools? Message-ID: <31.31864ffc.2b26545d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48016 In a message dated 12/9/02 3:11:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, voldemort at tut.by writes: > Nice this might seem, but then we should remember that when Hagrid was > expelled, he was forbidden to do magic at all. That may not be related to his not having graduated, but rather his having been expelled. HRH and the rest, I believe, are forbidden to do magic because they are under age, rather than not having graduated. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 21:52:53 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:52:53 -0000 Subject: Wands with no spells Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48017 I know that in the past everyone has discussed wandless magic, but as I was playing with my new wands I got in the mail (yes, I have more than one, but then, I have 4 kids and we all want to duel), I was thinking about the times I have read about characters using their wands with no spells. I don't have the books out at the moment, but I think all of you know which parts in which books I am thinking of. Remember when Mrs. Weasley flicks her wand at the dishes in the sink and they start washing themselves? What about Snape pointing his wand at the serpent and it disappearing? What I am wondering is: does a wizard need to "think" of the spell? We all know they can cast a spell with the wand, but I'm thinking they would at least need to think of the spell they want to use. Does that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some way? Telepathy, or something of the like? Alora From muttick2001 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 21:06:37 2002 From: muttick2001 at yahoo.com (muttick2001 ) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:06:37 -0000 Subject: Crushes on HP characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48018 Did anyone else have a huge crush on Prof Lupin? I'm really hoping he'll be in the next book. I beleive he will be, because I think Dumbledore sent him and others an owl in the last book. I found his wry amusement and calm manner brilliant. Anyone else agree? Maria From probono at rapidnet.com Mon Dec 9 21:39:57 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (Tanya) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:39:57 -0700 Subject: Hermione the Blackmailer In-Reply-To: <1039378858.45267.65580.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48019 (Newbie posting - hoping I've got the hang of it) I can't help but think that Hermione 'blackmailing' Skeeter is a dreadful mistake on Hermione's part. Namely because of the important and potentially dangerous information Skeeter is now in the posession of (Sirius Black, for example). And the fact that Draco now knows that Skeeter was a 'fly on the wall' during some very important conversations. I daresay the Malfoy's would find some of that information useful? Does Hermione understand the potentially calamitous consequences of releasing Skeeter with this information? She's been accused of meddling in things that she shouldn't (see below), so is this the one that backfires? By Snape: "Keep quiet you stupid girl. Don't talk about what you don't understand." And Skeeter: "Sit down, you silly little girl and don't talk about things you don't understand." -probono From dangermousehq at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 23:08:51 2002 From: dangermousehq at hotmail.com (dangermousehq at hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:08:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wands with no spells References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48020 Alora: "Does that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some way? Telepathy, or something of the like?" Me: That's more or less what I think--eventually wizards and witches become so magically skilled they don't need to say the incantation part of certain spells anymore. I think of the incantation (alohomora, for example) as just being a word that triggers a desired effect in your brain, which, in turn, causes it to manifest in the real world. If I was a wizard who didn't know what alohomora does and started shouting it, I don't think it would have any effect--there's no comprehension of what one's magical power should manifest. Moody tells us that most people who say Avada Kedavra with no effect--perhaps because of a lack of magical power, or maybe because you don't have the full comprehension of the Killing Curse... -Dan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Resqgal911 at msn.com Mon Dec 9 23:38:39 2002 From: Resqgal911 at msn.com (Tammy Bianchi) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:38:39 -0500 Subject: Wizarding Life Span vs. Muggle Life Span References: <1039319265.3947.37782.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48021 Acire wrote: >>However, here's a question: wouldn't the fact that wizards live >>longer than Muggles deter some wizards away from marrying a Muggle? >>You know right from the start that you're going to live longer than >>your spouse, and should you choose to tell your spouse, they know >>they will die before you. Since we are all speculating here, could a muggle married to a wizard possibly live longer than ordinary muggles? If the wizard spouse uses magic around the house and on their spouse wouldn't this help increase their lifespan? Lastly, do wizards live longer purely by magic or due to breeding? Wouldn't this make a muggle-born witch have a shorter lifespan than other wizards? Tammy From kethlenda at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 00:01:54 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:01:54 -0000 Subject: FILK: Something There...Ron and Hermione SHIP warning... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48022 OK, I've been filking for years but this is my first HP filk, so it might stink...Strix (Melody: "Something There" from Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_. Cast: Ron, Hermione, Harry, and Neville. Setting: Gryffindor Tower, just after the Yule Ball.) RON: Her big brown eyes, her silken curls, But till tonight I barely saw she was a girl. She danced with Krum, and now I'm sore; I don't know why I never noticed her before. HERMIONE: He glanced my way, at the Yule Ball. But he thought I was just a snotty know-it-all! No, it can't be, I'll just ignore-- But then he's never looked at me that way before. RON: What is this strange appeal-a, Why do I feel all this jealousy? HERMIONE: True, I may be no veela, But perhaps he's finally got the sense to notice me... HARRY POTTER: Ron was so green, but he denied His indignation could be more than Hogwarts pride. Just wait and see, a few days more, There may be something there that wasn't there before. NEVILLE (who hasn't been paying attention): What? What's there? HARRY: There may be something there that wasn't there before. --Strix-- From urbana at charter.net Tue Dec 10 00:21:13 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne R Urbanski) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:21:13 -0600 Subject: Harry's Point of View, and the Halloween murders Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48023 Hi all, I did a search (with the "search" feature, of course) through about the last 10,000 messages and couldn't find this mentioned... but it seems to me that it's very important that JKR wrote these books in third-person but from Harry's point of view, rather than third-person omniscient. To me, these stories are "about Harry" not merely because he's the focal point of the action, but because he's the only character whose thoughts we're privy to, whose head we actually get inside. If the POV was third-person omniscient, Harry could still be the focal point of the action, but JKR would be able to reveal not only Harry's thoughts but the other characters' as well. Of course that would make their motivations a lot easier to determine, but JKR really does want us to experience Hogwarts and the wizarding world through Harry's eyes, so like Harry, we can't be 100% sure of why anyone else says or does what s/he says or does. I'd carry this further but (a) I haven't thought about it long enough to write something really "deep" (plus I'm not really a deep thinker) and (b) I'm really tired because I stayed up waayyy too late the last few nights reading HP fanfic (sick, I know... and I have Y'ALL to thank for that! LOL) Also, on a more sober note, has anyone discussed the significance of Voldemort killing James and Lily on Halloween? I'd appreciate pointers to any previous posts about this. Anne U (needs a spell for "how to pop in for a brief spell") "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."? - Albus Dumbledore, in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" "Anyone could be the one to change your life" -- Monte Montgomery http://www.montemontgomery.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 10 02:00:28 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:00:28 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - Midnight In the Golden Wood (4 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48024 > [Note: Even for a TBAY post, this one puts an unusually large number > of words into Eileen's mouth for the purposes of facilitating the > fictional debate. While I have at least tried to base my TBAY! > Eileen's opinions in the, er, well, in the canon of her past posts, > so to speak, I may well have ascribed to her here some arguments and > beliefs which are not in fact really her own. If so, then I offer my > most sincere and Averyesque apologies.] [Note: No apologies needed. Elkins does an amazing job of writing of me.] "Cindy, Elkins," whispers Eileen, "We're not in TBAY anymore." It is dark and the three are standing in a forest glade. About them are the trees, like no trees that one has ever seen before. Bark of silver, and leaves, leaves of gold. "Mallorn," says Eileen. "The Golden Wood," says Elkins. In Dwimordene, in L?rien, Seldom have walked the feet of Men, Few mortal eyes have seen the light That lies there ever, long and bright. "This place is perilous," says Cindy with a shiver. "Let's go back to the Bay." "Perilous?" says Eileen. "It strikes me that folk takes their peril with them into L?rien, and finds it there because they've brought it. But perhaps you could call the Lady of the Golden Wood perilous, because she's so strong in herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on her, like a ship on a rock; or drown yourself, like a hobbit in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame. Now Cr-" She stopped and went red in the face. "Yes? Now Crouch you would say?" says Elkins. "What would you say? He took his peril with him?" Eileen is silent for a while, then she says, "I really don't see how you can claim that none of Crouch Sr's actions were motivated by noble concerns, Elkins. I really don't. None of them?" "None of them. He's usually putting the wizarding world at *risk,* isn't he? When he's not actually doing it outright harm. And he does so to serve himself." "If you're talking about the whole mess with springing Barty Jr. out of Azkaban, and keeping it secret afterwards, I've already admitted that wasn't noble. What about his political errors?" "Motivated by self-interest," says Elkins flatly. "Let's take a look at what we know about Crouch's political behavior. A quick rise through the ranks, authorization of the unforgivable curses against the citizenry, seizure of the Minister's powers and functions, people calling for him to "take over," pandering to mob mentality when it served his own political ends, but counteracting it when it didn't, encouraging mass hysteria, "very harsh measures" against Voldemort's supporters." "I suppose you wanted soft and gentle measures against Voldemort's supporters?" says Eileen. Elkins pauses, frowning. "What the hell is a 'supporter,' anyway?" she demands. "We all know what a Death Eater is, but precisely what qualifies someone as a 'supporter?' Really, a 'supporter' can be just about anyone you want it to be, can't it?" Eileen stands still, her mouth gaping. It irks her when Elkins finds these things in the text that she somehow overlooked. "But you're *assuming* that he was self-interested!" cries Eileen finally. "Well, of course I'm assuming that he was self-interested! Why on earth shouldn't I? Honestly, now, Eileen, if all of the things listed above were just about all you knew about some real world politician, then would you assume that the protection of the populace was his driving motivation?" "No," says Eileen glumly. "I'd be out there picketing. But that's the charm of fiction. In fiction, you can see things from both sides. You can't do that in real life. I admitted he was a hypocrite. I know he was ambitious. But I still think he wanted to protect the populace." "Evidence?" says Elkins. "Well, what are you saying? That he didn't?" Eileen looks ready to break down in tears. "Voldemort was evil. He was killing people. Listen what Hagrid said, "No-one lived after he decided to kill them." You can go on and on about how Crouch encouraged paranoia for his own political purposes, but in the end, paranoia was a healthy way of life. One might be paranoid, but they really were out to get you." "'Desperate times call for desperate measures,' Eileen?" Elkins shakes her head. "But that's just what politicians *always* claim when they first start authorizing their enforcers to use torture and other such 'measures' against the populace, isn't it? You don't really think that the politicians *themselves* believe that when they say it, do you?" "It depends," mutters Eileen. "I'm sorry?" says Elkins. "Well, you know a little about my background - I don't know how, but you always do seem to get the accurate impression of me - and I know quite a few politicians personally. And, despite any disagreement I may have with certain ideas and policies, they often do believe in them. Very seriously. Very passionately." "You know politicians who are implementing torture and other such 'measures'?" asks Elkins. "Well, that's why I said, "It depends." Obviously, you can only go so far before you're corrupted. And Sirius did say that Crouch's motives might have been good in the beginning." "When he was working in the mail room," says Elkins. "Maybe. But I find it hard to believe that he saw all that going on, and his first response wasn't to want to stop it, to stop Voldemort from killing innocent people. That's just... normal. That's how anyone would react, you'd think." "But he'd know fell well, like any real world politician, that those measures were ineffective," says Elkins. " When politicians authorize things like torture, summary execution without formal charge, and detention without trial, it's never really about protecting the populace at all. That's not the real function of those things. Their function is to cement the political power of those who control their use." Eileen looks wearily at Elkins. "World War II. The Soviet Front," she finally says. "It kept people fighting to know that there was no forgiveness for being taken prisoner. That people who were taken prisoner were Nazi collaborators. It kept people fighting to know that any sign of discontent was treason. It kept people under the control of Stalin." "Eileen!" cries Cindy aghast. "Save me!" says Eileen, turning white, and then flushing scarlet. "There I go again! When ever you open your big mouth you put your foot in it the Gaffer used to say to me, and right enough. O dear, O dear! Now look here, Elkins. Don't you go taking advantage of Crouch because his defender can't keep from making that connection. He wasn't Stalin. He really wasn't. You've spoken very handsome all along, put me off my guard, talking about the Golden Wood, and all. But handsome is as handsome does. Now's a chance to show your quality." "So it seems," says Elkins slowly and very softly, with a strange smile. "So, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You even compared Crouch to Stalin in a moment of absentmindedness. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Elkins to show her quality! Ha!" She stands up, her eyes glinting. Cindy and Eileen back away. But Elkins sits down again and begins to laugh quietly, and then suddenly becomes grave again. "You judge me wrongly," she says. "I am a truth-speaker, though I enjoying twisting the truth sometimes. Crouch was no Stalin. He never did get as far as Dekulakization." "Crouch *isn't* a real world politician," says Eileen. "He's a fictional politician in a fantasy novel. He exists in a world in which the blacks are a whole lot blacker, and the lines far more brightly drawn, than they are in our own. Just think of what he was up against!" Elkins frowns. "Whatever happened to the Golden Wood?" she demands. "Whatever happened to 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men?'" "That applies to real world *ethics,*" Eileen explains patiently. "But not necessarily to real world motivess, or even to real world efficiency. I've already conceded that Crouch made the wrong decisions. I did list his authorization of the UCs as the most serious of his fatal errors, didn't I? I'm just saying that you can't necessarily look to real world precedent to defend the notion that in the Potterverse, his measures might not actually have been *effective,* and that he couldn't therefore have sincerely believed that he was doing some good with them. I gave you the case of Denethor as an example, because Crouch has quite a lot in common with Denethor - his urge to subsume his sons' identity into his own, for example - but Denethor wans't so much of a hypocrite. So maybe we might want to look at another member of that dysfunctional family, who was a hypocrite, if a lot nicer. " ------------------------------------------------------------ "Yet may I not even speak of it? For you seem ever to think only of its power in the hands of the Enemy: of its evil uses not of its good. The world is changing, you say. Minas Tirith will fall, if the Ring lasts. But why? Certainly, if the Ring were with the Enemy. But why, if it were with us?" "Were you not at the Council?," answered Frodo. "Because we cannot use it, and what is done with it turns to evil." Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. "So you go on," he cried. "Gandalf, Elrond - all these folk have taught you to say so. For themselves they may be right. These elves and half-elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. But each to his own kind. True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!" Boromir strode up and down, speaking ever more loudly: Almost he seemed to have forgotten Frodo, while his talk dwelt on walls and weapons, and the mustering of men; and he drew plans for great alliances and glorious victories to be; and he cast down Mordor, and became himself a mighty king, benevolent and wise. ------------------------------------------------------------- "The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory," says Cindy thoughtfully. "Ambitious. Craving power. Hypocritical. Selfish in his ends. And with good motives of a sort," says Eileen. "He had seen people killed by Sauron's armies. He knew what would happen to his people if Sauron won. He really did want to protect them. And he wanted power for himself. Just like Crouch. Using the Ring or authorizing the Unforgivable Curses on suspects are wrong, but one can see why one would want to for reasons other than standard realpolitik. In the Golden Wood, that is." "Well...okay," says Elkins. "But where's the canon? I mean, if I'm understanding your reading correctly, then I can't help but feel that it is asking me to overlook an awful lot of things. First, it asks me to overlook the way that things work in real life. Generally speaking, I prefer not to throw out my real world expectations in favor of fantastical ones unless I see some evidence that it's appropriate, evidence like a pattern of genre convention, for example. But the pattern in the HP books tells me that I probably *shouldn't* be doing that when it comes to the Ministry and its attendent plotlines." "What do you mean?" "Well, much of the Potterverse is indeed fabulous, mythic. But it doesn't seem to me that the Ministry and its attendant plotlines are generally portrayed that way at all. As I read them, the Ministry plotlines are simplified, but they don't strike me as at all fabulous or politically naive. In fact, they're generally rather stunningly hard-nosed, which I suspect is one of the main reasons that the series' adult readers enjoy discussing them so much. Nothing *else* about the Ministry plotlines reflects political naivete on the part of the authorial voice, and that makes it really difficult for me to read Crouch's 'harsh measures' in quite as ingenuous or as allegorical a light as you suggest." "But Barty Crouch Sr. doesn't know he's in a book with stunningly hard-nosed Ministry plotlines!" cries Eileen. "All he knows is that he's up against the most evil wizard..." Cindy and Elkins are staring at her as if she had just come from another planet. "What?" cries Eileen. "You like metathinking," says Cindy gently. "Don't you remember? You don't like sticking to what the character himself knows." "Oh dear," says Eileen. "If I'd only sided with Pip on this one, I could have the coolest Crouch theories. Instead, I need to fight Elkins on higher ground." "You don't need to fight me," says Elkins. "You can admit I'm right. The Ministry plotlines do not allow for the fantastical political situation." "You think so, eh?" says Eileen. "Then what is the war against Voldemort?" "Pardon?" "What is Voldemort? Is he an ordinary enemy in real world terms? I explained that there is no real world analogue for Voldemort. He is the villain of fantasy. Someone explained this in Chestertonian terms on the list a long while back. Ah, here we are: Message Message 20237, Rebecca J. Bohner: >The villain is not in the story to be a character; he is there >to be a danger -- a ceaseless, ruthless and uncompromising menace, >like that of the wild beasts or the sea. For the full satisfaction >of the sense of combat, which everywhere and always involves a >sense of equality, it is necessary to make the evil thing a man; >but it is not always necessary, it is not even always artistic to >make him a mixed and probable man. In any tale, the tone of which >is at all symbolic, he may quite legitimately be made an aboriginal >and infernal energy. "The point is," says Eileen, "That that's not real life. But that is Voldemort, the "undiluted villain." "Where did you find that?" asks Cindy. "The advantages of cataloguing, O my captain!" says Eileen. "Chesterton would have despised Crouch," says Elkins. "Oh, too true. He would have. Chesterton didn't understand sympathizing with unsympathetic characters that well, though he pretended he did. Anyway, this is what Crouch was responding to. His response was wrong. It was misguided. It was quite possibly useless. But you can't pretend that the Ministry, however un-naive its portrayal is, is in another world fighting Voldemort than Harry is fighting Voldemort. That reading seems just as strange to me as reading Crouch's motives as entirely pure." "So you admit they weren't?" asks Elkins. "Neither were Boromir's," says Eileen. "And yes, they were probably tarnished more than most people's," she adds with a sigh. "And then you ask me to overlook Crouch's thematic associations." "His thematic associations?" "Yes. In GoF, Crouch isn't associated with motifs and subplots that deal with protection or with self-sacrifice. Rather, he seems to be associated with all of the motifs and subplots that focus thematically on issues of coercion, control, domination, and the negation of volition." "Well, that's lovely. You say you can't see the motifs and subplots, and then you use that as evidence that they're not there." "Eileen!" says Elkins. "Don't even try getting away with that fallacy. If there are motifs and subplots, the onus is on you to point them out, not on me to see them. I've pointed out the Crouch motifs and subplots of coercion, control, domination, and the nagation of volition. Show me the protection and the self-sacrifice." Eileen mumbles something. "Speak up, Eileen," says Elkins. "Because you darn well need to show them. Your LotR analogues for example. There we could point out the motifs of protection and self-sacrifice that surround that admittedly dysfunctional family. But in HP, we never see Crouch acting as a protector to himself, sacrificing himself. Instead, we see him furthing his own interests, acting to protect himself." "Put me on the spot, and you expect me to spit out the answer," says Eileen. "He does protect his son, you know. You'll be saying that later on." "And we all know the details of that," says Elkins. "And how he'll endanger the wizarding world by it." "Fine," says Eileen. "You and your meta-thinking. Barty Crouch Sr. spent his life fighting the most evil wizard ever, and YOU CAN'T APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPER MOTIFS SURROUNDING HIM?" "Some tea?" asks Cindy. "IT'S MIDNIGHT IN THE GOLDEN WOOD!" shrieks Eileen "AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TEA!" "Barty liked tea," says Cindy. "Oh right," says Eileen, taking the cup Cindy proffers her. "Anyway, Barty Crouch Sr. is serious thematic bad news. I think you've established that quite nicely, Elkins. Doesn't mean he didn't have any good motives. Didn't you say in the last post, >In short, is Crouch self-sacrificing or self-serving? >Is he a hard-liner, or is he a hypocrite? > >I think that he's a little bit of both, myself. > >But mainly the latter. "If I'm so off the mark on Crouch's motives, why did you say that? Where do you see the self-sacrificing, the little that you do see?" "Getting desperate, aren't you?" says Cindy. "Well yes," says Eileen, pushing the undrunk cup of tea back on Cindy. "Because I LIKE Bartemius Crouch Sr. A lot. I liked him instantaneously, on finishing the last page of GoF, one of my first thoughts was "Crouch was rather sympathetic, wasn't he?" I liked him before I sat down and tried to analyse why. Now I know what it feels like to be on the other side of Elkins's charges." "You asked for it," says Cindy. "Yeah, I know. I've been shamelessly begging for this on the list, on the Fantastic Posts project, and in private emails for weeks and weeks and weeks. And now that I have it I'm revelling in it. But I must be a glutton for punishment. Do you know what she's done? She's carefully noted every single thing I (or anyone else on the list) has said about Crouch, and she's worked it into her arguments." "Are you finished your discourse on me in the third person?" asks Elkins patiently. "Can we return to the matter at hand?" "Yes," says Eileen, forcing a smile. "I think that if we want to propose a reading that goes against all of these indications, we really need to find some evidence for it in the text. Evidence sufficiently weighty to override all of the things that are pushing *against* a reading of Crouch as genuinely motivated by the desire to protect the wizarding world and to serve the populace. So. Is there any?" "I said. I'd get back to you on that one," says Eileen flatly. "You know, I'd always assumed that was just... ordinary." "You've said that before," says Elkins icily. There is a long silence. "What does the text actually tell us about Crouch and his harsh measures?" Elkins prompts. "Is there any evidence that Crouch's measures were actually *effective* means to his purported end? That they actually worked? That they did the slightest bit of good against Voldemort and his Death Eaters?" "No," says Eileen. "Very good," says Elkins. "Meanwhile, Moody brought more Death Eaters to justice than any other Auror, without stooping to Crouch's level. Don't you think that's JKR's way of telling us that 'harsh' and 'effective' are not necessarily synonymous?" "Yes," says Eileen, after a long silence. "But I never said Crouch's methods were effective, just that he was trying to fight Voldemort with them." "And you know what I said about that," says Elkins. There is another long silence. "Dumbledore seems to have cared about Crouch," says Eileen. "Yes, well." Elkins smiles. "Dumbledore. We can't all be Dumbledore, can we? Dumbledore seems to like Fudge well enough too, on the purely personal level." "Yeah, well, Dumbledore doesn't care at all for your Barty Crouch Jr.!" "Eileen!" says Cindy. "Well it's true. He's very kindly towards his father. When he's speaking to Harry after the pensieve scene, he really doesn't single out Crouch Sr. or talk with any particular bitterness about his actions. I got the feeling he felt sorry for him, no matter what Crouch had did. And that was even when he though Barty Jr. might be innocent. But look how he treats your lovely little Barty Jr. Blazing eyes, looks of disgust." "Eileen!" "Right, so I'm supposed to sympathize with the character whom Dumbledore looks at with disgust, rather than the character whom he sounds concerned about." Elkins looks at Eileen, shakes her head, and continues, "Dumbledore didn't trust Crouch." "Yeah, I know that." "You do?" asks Elkins. "Well, I wouldn't," says Eileen. "You wouldn't?" asks Cindy. "Hopefully not. In reality, I might be charmed by his charisma into being one of those supporters clamouring for him to take over. You never know. But I certainly hope not." "So," says Elkins, "Maybe Crouch's measures really did do some good. Or maybe they only served to exacerbate the conflict. Remember when Pip suggested that her Ever-So-Evil Death Eating Mrs. Crouch was likely the person to talk her husband into encouraging the use of the UCs in the first place? She said: > > If you want your side to fight to the death...then encouraging the > > other side to kill/torture upon capture is a *really* good plan. "Really, when you think about it, Crouch's measures could well have prolonged the conflict." Eileen looks conflicted. "I want to say that they could have been the only thing staving Voldemort off for eleven years," she says, "But I have canon for you." "Canon?" asks Elkins interestedly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were, too. He preferred to fight rather than coming quietly." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Oh very nice," says Elkins. "Thankyou." "You're welcome," says Eileen savagely. "Anyway," says Elkins. "We do know something very important for which Crouch's measures were useful. They made Crouch *popular.*" "Oh, I don't know, Elkins," she says, jumping back to her main point again. "I think that Crouch's political errors really *did* originate from his desire to protect the world from Voldemort. He went overboard in privileging the ends over the means, but his ends were basically good. He just got carried away because--" "Because he despised and detested the Dark Arts and those who practiced them." Elkins rolls her eyes. "Yes, yes. We *know.* Crouch tells us so *himself,* after all. At the QWC. In a public place. In front of many witnesses. When he is feeling personally threatened. And while he is busily engaged in doing everything within his power to deflect attention away from his mad, dangerous Death Eater son. His son, on whom he himself had been practicing Dark Arts for over a decade." "Well," says Eileen. "Did you wonder why about a week or so ago, I asked the list whether the Unforgivables were Dark Magic?" "I think we've all figured out," says Cindy. "That ANYTHING you bring up on the list is somehow connected Barty Crouch Sr. You're obsessed. Face it." "Yeah," says Eileen, "And now I don't have the heart to make the case I was planning out. The case that the Unforgivables aren't Dark Magic, so you can't accuse Barty Sr. of using Dark Magic." "Eileen, give us a break!" cries Cindy. "Yeah, I'll do that. Maybe, I'll argue it some other time." "Dark Magic or not, the Unforgivables are seriously bad news," says Cindy. "Yeah. I know." "Then back to our scheduled topic," says Elkins. "I think that he very badly wanted to *believe* that he hated dark wizardry. Although for someone with such an apparent lack of scruple about the Unforgivable Curses to claim status as a despiser of Dark Arts is...well, let's just say that Crouch's self-professed hatred of the Dark Arts has always struck me as a classic case of protesting too much." "Me too!" says Eileen. "What?" says Cindy. "She's bent," says Elkins. "That's all there is to it. Anyway, I do think that Crouch *wanted* to believe that he hated Dark Wizardry. I think that he wanted that very badly. I'd say that he was absolutely desperate to believe that about himself. But I don't think that his primary motivations had anything to do with protecting the wizarding world from Voldemort, or from dark wizards." "That's just because you're biased against him," says Eileen. "How can you discount what he wanted to believe so easily? Isn't what we want to believe important at all? What about Macbeth? Don't you like those who delude themselves into thinking their motivations are one thing, when they're really another?" "Look, Eileen, I'd much rather have seen Crouch portrayed as a truly sincere and honorable proponent of ends over means. But I just can't accept him as such, partly because of all of the factors I mentioned before, but also because when I look at his political actions, I see some very troubling discrepancies. Take Karkaroff's hearing, for example. This hearing would seem to have been closed to the general public. "Karkaroff's crimes are very similar to those which will apparently drive Crouch to righteous fury when confronted with the Longbottoms' assailants: serving the Dark Lord, torturing wizards. Karkaroff's crimes are hardly any different from the crime which Crouch will later describe as "so heinous. . . .that we have rarely heard the like of it within this court," the crime that will apparently inspire him to bug-eyed fury, to regard the defendents with "pure hatred" in his face, and to condemn them to life imprisonment with the editorial comment "Take them away, and may they rot there!" "Ok. Crouch isn't a hard-line fanatic," says Eileen. "But I can think of reasons for him to be personally furious over the Longbottom case and not personally furious over Karkaroff. There's the fact that his son's involved in the later case, and then there's the fact of who the victims were." "Explain." "Karkaroff doesn't seem to have been torturing anyone that important. If he had, he would have accused Dolohov of much worse things. Sounded to me like "non-supporters of the Dark Lord" was code for innocent magical civilians." "So, you're saying," says Elkins, "that Crouch held Frank Longbottom's life more important than someone else's, just because Longbottom was one of his very popular aurors?" "Yes, I suppose I am." "AND I'M SUPPOSED TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT?" shouts Elkins, moving towards Cindy's paddle. "Well, I didn't think you would," says Eileen nervously. "But that's how people are. Crouch knew Frank Longbottom, and I'm guessing, liked him very well. He was popular, you know. Like Crouch." A light gleams in Elkins's eye. "Let's not turn this into a "Let's Slander Frank Longbottom" party again, please," says Cindy. "Oh yes," says Elkins with cruel amusement. "You're fine when it's Arthur Weasley, but we can't taint your poor dear martyred Frank Longbottom. We'll see about that later. But the Karkaroff/Longbottom scenes show that Crouch Sr. isn't that prone to ends-over-means-excesses, when it doesn't suit him." "Explain to me," says Eileen steadily. "Why Crouch didn't torture Karkaroff. Isn't that a point in his favour? As a man of honour. Let him go too, in exchange for the information. A man of his word. As you said once." "It's not a point in his favour," snaps Elkins. "If he were really so concerned with the safety of the wizarding world, concerned enough about it that he allows it to lead him into all types of moral error, then how could he allow someone guilty of Karkaroff's crimes to walk free?" "Maybe Dumbledore talked him into it," says Eileen. "I dunno." "Because nobody is watching him, that's why. Karkaroff's hearing is a closed hearing. The eye of the public is not upon him. Then let's look at Crouch's relationship with Ludo Bagman. Crouch did think that Bagman was guilty of worse than stupidity. He spoke of it to Winky. Crouch shows occasional traces of irritation and exasperation in his dealings with Bagman, but no sign at all of hatred, bitterness or rancour." "Wait a moment!" says Eileen. "How do you reconcile this with your belief that Crouch Sr. is still trying to get his popularity back by catching another Dark Wizard. Of course, Crouch is an opportunist. Of course, he'll be polite as possible to Bagman, while still putting him in his place. Those scenes between them are really quite funny, you know? Bagman is either oblivious or doing a really good job of it of Crouch's dislike for him, and he's really the only person sometimes who seems to be interested in how Crouch is doing. That part at the QWC where he starts defending Crouch, "Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark? She wouldn't know how! She'd need a wand for a start!" And interesting that he knows Winky's name. It's almost as if Ludo has decided to like Crouch, and that's that. It's endearing, it is." "To you," sniffs Cindy. "Death Eater Verily Is Ludo." "And Crouch can't stand him, which may be why Ludo's become such a fan." "As fascinating as is all this speculation about Ludo Bagman's relationship with Crouch, if Crouch were really such a fanatic, then how could he manage this?" "Yes," says Eileen. "Arthur Weasley couldn't in relation to Lucius Malfoy." "Arthur Weasley isn't Crouch Arthur Weasley is a Gryffindor. Bartemius Crouch is a Slytherin. And tell the L.O.O.N.s not to bother. I know that's not in the text. If you're trying to catch dark wizards to regain your popularity, you don't get into public fistfights with them." "So you admit he was trying to regain his popularity?" "Uh-huh." "And then there are all of those people who got off on the Imperius defense." "I'm blaming that on the hypothetical Minister for Magic of the time," says Eileen. "Remember?" "Very convenient," says Elkins. "But hear me out. "You do realize, of course," she says. "That you're the one who got me started on this? Remember message #44636, when you asked me why Crouch didn't use the Cruciatus to wrest Karkaroff's names from him? And then asked me how Lucius Malfoy got off?" "But those were supposed to be Crouch apologetics!" wails Eileen. "I was trying to *praise* Crouch, not to bury him! I was just trying to prove that he wasn't--" "Wasn't Stalin. I know. But that does rather beg the question of what precisely he *was,* doesn't it? I notice a very interesting pattern when it comes to Crouch's violations of due process." "But wait," says Eileen. "I'm confused. Didn't you just say Crouch Sr. was trying to catch dark wizards? And was sad when he ran out of them? And now you're saying he let such catches as Lucius Malfoy off the hook? That doesn't make sense. It makes far more sense to see him as restrained by the then-Minister for Magic." "When we look at the canonical examples that we have been given of the times when Crouch does violate due process, I think that we see a distinct pattern emerging," says Elkins. "Crouch's legal behavior would seem to be primarily determined by the desires of the public. When no one is watching him, he does not exhibit fanaticism or excess in his treatment of prisoners. When he misjudges the mood of the populace -- as happens at Ludo Bagman's trial -- he backs down without much demur. But when people are clamoring for blood, that is when he panders to them by playing the role of Bartemius Crouch, Fanatical Hard-Liner, and by throwingthem sacrificial blood offerings, like Sirius Black and the Pensieve Four." "Yeah, you're right. What about HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes?" asks Eileen. "THAT IS NOT CANON!" says Cindy. "All this Frank Longbottom bashing of yours is getting on my nerves." "Parents need to be careful of the stories they tell," she says. "They really do. Because the person who really *was* a fanatic? Who really did devote himself body and soul to service to his cause? Who really did privilege it above his regard for his family ties? Who really never once allowed love -- *any* of the four loves -- to dictate his actions? The Bartemius Crouch who really *was* a True Believer? The Barty Crouch who played that game for *keeps?*" "You aren't really trying to blame Barty Crouch Sr. for his son's decision to become a Death Eater," asks Eileen. "Are you, Elkins?" "No, of course not. People have to make their own choices in the end, don't they? Not that Crouch Sr. believed in that, of course....." There is a very long silence. Eileen wants to argue, but can't find the willpower to do it. "And What *about* Pettigrew?," says Elkins. "You want to hear what mass hysteria does to people? 'He was taking over everywhere! What was there to be gained by refusing him?'" Another long silence, while Eileen feels bitterly jealous that Elkins can think up ideas like that and she never does. (Well except for HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes of whom she is very proud, even if Cindy thinks ill of him.) ""In GoF, Crouch's service to Voldemort just makes its final transition from the symbolic level to the literal one," says Elkins. "Secretly serving as a tool of evil wasn't a new role for Crouch. It was the fruition of his entire political career. He had been serving the forces of evil his entire life." Eileen nods reluctantly. "My problem with Crouch is that he was a *war profiteer.* One whose profit came in the form of political capital and personal power, and at the expense of the populace that he was supposed to serve. Not a Hawk, but a Storm Crow, someone who battened on fear and hatred and paranoia, and on public hysteria, and who stirred it up not out of honorable motives, but to serve his own selfish ends. That's something that I find really hard to forgive." "I cannot follow you there," says Eileen. "I don't think he meant to do all that." "You don't think he "meant to?" asks Elkins harshly. "And why would that be?" "Because he had deluded himself that his motives were good. Even if they weren't, at base, like you've said. And I don't know why, but I can forgive that." "You don't know why?" "Oh yes, I do know why," says Eileen suddenly. "Because otherwise, I don't have a chance. Rectitude of intention has never been my strong point, as I told you. And somehow you've managed to get me to face up to that in regards to Crouch. You have an air about you, Elkins, that reminds me of, of - well, Dumbledore, of wizards." "Maybe," says Elkins. "Maybe you discern from far away the air of N?menor. Good night!" > REFERENCES: > > This post is continued from part three. It is primarily a response > to Messages #44636 (Despiadado Denethor) and #45402 (Crouch Sr as > Tragic Hero), but also cites or references message numbers 37769, > 39573, 43010 and downthread responses, 44643, 45693, and 46935. > > For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, > visit Hypothetic Alley at > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Dec 10 02:37:54 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:37:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crushes on HP characters/ Wands with no spells References: Message-ID: <00dc01c29ff5$25304700$01a2cdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 48025 Maria writes: >Did anyone else have a huge crush on Prof Lupin? > >I'm really hoping he'll be in the next book. I beleive he will be, >because I think Dumbledore sent him and others an owl in the last >book. I found his wry amusement and calm manner brilliant. Anyone >else agree? Oh, yes. Yes, yes, yes. However, I worry a bit about Lupin. He's second on my list of possible "hard to write" deaths for book 5, right behind Hagrid. But I do think we'll see him in OoP, can't remember for sure if JKR confirmed that, though I know she did say after GoF that he'd be back, as he was one of her favorites. Though I hate to say it, he does seem a likely candidate to, well, die. Hopefully not in OoP, but before it's all over. Alora: >>"Does that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some way? >>Telepathy, or something of the like?" Dan: >That's more or less what I think--eventually wizards and witches become so >magically skilled they don't need to say the incantation part of certain spells >anymore. I think of the incantation (alohomora, for example) as just being a word >that triggers a desired effect in your brain, which, in turn, causes it to >manifest in the real world. If I was a wizard who didn't know what alohomora does >and started shouting it, I don't think it would have any effect--there's no >comprehension of what one's magical power should manifest. I think it's something that takes place as a wizard/witch becomes more skilled and their wand more familiar with them. It becomes a part of them and knows the wizard's intentions without them saying anything. Younger wizards like Harry still need to use the incantations, but I'd say that as they grow more experienced there is less need for incantations. Certainly for simple spells, like Mrs. Weasley's dish washing. For more complex spells, like Avada Kedavra, for a negative one, I think an incantation is always necessary. Or at least no wizard we know of has achieved that level of magic--yet. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From melclaros at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 02:59:36 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:59:36 -0000 Subject: Wands with no spells In-Reply-To: <00dc01c29ff5$25304700$01a2cdd1@RVotaw> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richelle Votaw" wrote: . > > Alora: > >>"Does that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some way? > >>Telepathy, or something of the like?" > > Dan: > > >That's more or less what I think--eventually wizards and witches become so >magically skilled they don't need to say the incantation part of certain spells >anymore. I think of the incantation (alohomora, for example) as just being a word >that triggers a desired effect in your brain, which, in turn, causes it to >manifest in the real world. > Richelle > I think it's something that takes place as a wizard/witch becomes more skilled and their wand more familiar with them. It becomes a part of them and knows the wizard's intentions without them saying anything. me: I see it this way...remember learning to drive? Remember having to actively concentrate on where your hands were on the wheel and where your foot was on what pedal? Remember having to remind yourself to look in the rear-view mirror and to check the side mirrors before changing lanes--that is if you were ready to change lanes AT ALL? How about that clutch pedal and the shift pattern? Now fast forward a few years. You hardly have to think about it. (although we would be a lot better off if we all thought about it more I dare say!). It's become second nature. The car is, in effect, an extension of the driver. I'd imagine spell casting is similar. first you have to learn the spells, the right spells, where and when to use them, and all that. Then you have to learn to concentrate your energy on performing the spell itself. It also seems that there is a certain amount of technique required in the actual "wand waving". So, you'd have to learn how to hold the wand (think chopsticks?) and whether you swish and flick with the fingers, wrist or entire arm. Eventually I'd imagine you'd learn to channel the energy into the spell without having to vocalize the incantation. Certain simple workaday spells would become second nature. The dishwashing spell certainly. Snape's snake-vanishing spell? Well maybe he has to do that on a regular basis, or perhaps he just used a similar very basic "clean up" spell--one which must get A LOT of use in his classroom. At least since Neville's been enrolled. Melpomene From seaducer9 at comcast.net Tue Dec 10 02:05:43 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (seaducer9) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:05:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 2326 References: <1039461225.3476.59488.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <005101c29ff0$a71788a0$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48027 Hello all, Amy Z wrote: > was in a class yesterday where one of the kids was explaining to >the rest that Sauron is even worse than Voldemort. She said that her >father (who has read her HP and is reading her LoTR) said so, and >seemed to think that settled it. What do you all think? I promise I >won't spoil her illusions of paternal infallibility if the consensus >here is that Voldemort gets the Most Evil prize. Having read the Trilogy, as well as HP I would have to say that Sauron is by far worse than Voldemort. V is a bad wizard trying to take over and change the world to his image of what it should be, BUT he is not nearly as successful as Sauron was in his world. Nor is he as ruthless, keep in mind that he didn't appear to want to kill Lily, and she had to force him to do so. Sauron would have just wiped out the whole town at the same time, and he also wasn't so forgiving of his followers mistakes unless he felt he could still gain allot from keeping them alive. Lastly, there was no one Sauron feared, and nowhere he wasn't capable of going. It would appear to me that Dumbledore is, or at least was stronger than V as he was able to protect the Dursley's and V knows he cannot touch Harry when he is with them. Drew Z. seaducer9 at comcast.net From seaducer9 at comcast.net Tue Dec 10 01:37:16 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (seaducer9) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:37:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A plot parallel: Playing Dirty References: <1039421843.2373.23163.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004a01c29fec$abf42e40$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48028 Hello all, Porphyria wrote: >Hermione, however, didn't seem to consult > anyone before imprisoning and blackmailing Rita >Skeeter, and this has struck me as a very reckless >decision which I'm worried will come back to haunt her. [snip] Actually, not to split hairs, but isn't blackmailing more of a personal gain thing? It seems to me what Hermione was doing was making a deal with Skeeter. In other words, what Hermione and Co. are getting is that Skeeter cannot lie to the public for at least a year, or risk legal action(something I wouldn't mind in the real world). Now, if Hermione told Skeeter that she wanted xx$ for keeping her mouth shut, that would be a different story. BTW my name is Drew, I am 28 and new here. Drew Z. seaducer9 at comcast.net From kethlenda at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 00:24:47 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:24:47 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand/getting into Diagon Alley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "R. Penar " wrote: > NO book at work for me either, but I don't recall it being > specifically mentioned that you need a wand. The only time I remember > them talking about the brick wall to get through was when Harry & > Hagrid went into the pub through the regular London "muggle" > entrance. Perhaps it is different if you enter through the wizarding > world? This would explain how Hagrid continued to get through, as the > only time we have seen Hagrid in the Muggle world is in PS/SS. I do think someone said, at some point, that "you have to have a wand to even get into Diagon Alley" or some such. I don't remember in which book, or who said it. But it's possible that it's hyperbole--maybe whoever said it just meant "you have to know your way around the WW to get into Diagon Alley." *shrug* Strix From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 10 03:13:26 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:13:26 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands with no spells Message-ID: <112.1b94e994.2b26b5d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48030 In a message dated 12/9/02 10:01:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, melclaros at yahoo.com writes: > Snape's snake-vanishing spell? Well maybe he has to do that on a regular > basis, or perhaps he just used a similar very basic "clean up" spell--one > which must get A LOT of use in his classroom. At least since Neville's been > enrolled. Actually, I find that whole snake spell interesting. My impression is that Snape told Malfoy to use it, gave him the incantation right there. He wanted to panic Harry. Instead, he reveals Harry's abilities as a Parseltongue. It also produces Snape's most interesting reaction to Harry yet... "Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an unexpected way: It was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry didn't like it." Snape triggered that whole bit...and got a different reaction than he intended. Which begs the question...is Snape a Parseltongue? And, for that matter, why isn't Malfoy, whose whole family has been in Slytherin for generations. Isn't Parseltongue one of the things Slytherin himself looked for in his students? Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Dec 10 03:36:16 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:36:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crushes on HP characters/ Wands with no spells References: <00dc01c29ff5$25304700$01a2cdd1@RVotaw> Message-ID: <3DF56130.6E76EFC1@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48031 My crush is on Dobby the house elf.. Not really.. ;) Actually I am among those who drool over Snape. Why? Cause he reminds me of myself during a bad case of PMS..? No.. Thats not it. Actually its more a matter of feeling a kinship to him in a way, being as I have to deal with 'children' in a sense every day and hate it, would rather curl up with a cup of tea and a good book and tell the world to go take a flying leap. I've gone though enough angst in my life to melt the average persons brain and came out of it bitter and bad tempered. However, there is one difference. I didn't lose my sense of humor.. I tried to, but the darn thing just keeps turning up, meowing at the door whenever I move. So, seeing a bitter, angry, bad tempered, sarcastic, witty, intelligent, brave, loyal and sexy (in a gothic sort of way) character tends to keep my interest peaked and causes me to waste good money on books, audio CDs, movies, plush-toy Golden Snitches/3 Headed Dogs and badly designed action figures with bits that fly out of them. No..no.. I'm not a fan.. really.. I just use them to keep the dust off the shelves.. thats it.. Pity there are no 'real life' guys that interesting these days. I have NO interest in Sirius and can't see anything 'sexy' about him. Maybe it was the whole slashing the fat lady's painting thing, the 'lets try and kill a fellow student prank' or the fact that I'm a cat person and don't care for dogs? Lupin is mildly interesting, but doesn't really do much for me. The rest of the cast? Hmmm.. nope.. Lockhart reminds me of my first boyfriend and creeps me out big time... Jazmyn From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Dec 10 03:46:23 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:46:23 -0600 Subject: Excusssse me. References: Message-ID: <3DF5638F.907D8477@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48032 (Takes out a .357 magnum and shoots the owl carrying the Howler. Feathers float down everywhere.. ) It seems, that people took offense to my hinting that people in the WW might 'pity' muggles who 'believe' they can cast spells. (ie. Pagan, Voodoo, Shaman, Satanist, whatever.. also including any non-religion based sympathetic magic or superstitions). This was NOT aimed at offending anyone far as RELIGION goes, but aimed at showing that people in the WW may view the 'magic' practiced by said people as 'muggles who THINK they can do magic'. If people find this offensive because they DO think they can do real magic, I invite them to come visit me and levitate objects around the room or turn into an animal of their choice to prove it... Otherwise, please understand that I was TRYING to present how a viewpoint of someone from the Wizarding World (if it did hypothetically exist) would see it. I mean really.. Could you see Snape's reaction if a muggle claimed they were cursing him by burning his name in the flames of a black candle or somesuch? Or Hermione's reaction? I will likely get another howler, but I refuse to be intimidated by them.. If I get moderated for speaking my mind, then so be it.. Oh, and thanks to the people who privately emailed me who agreed, even if they didn't wish to say anything to the group for fear of the moderators.. Oh no.. Now I'll get a howler for stating people fear moderators? Well, will have to stock up on ammo then and stick up for my right to free speech. At least I was on topic and not talking about house elves and wizards having relationships, though its not unreasonable to think they wouldn't when you look at all the half giants and others who have magical creatures as relatives. Love IS blind after all (and deaf, dumb, stupid and tasteless as well, judging by my brother in law, but I digress..) (And no, shooting the owl was not meant to offend animal lovers either.. It was meant as dark comedy. After all, I did like the movie Dogma, but despise platapuses..platapi? Whatever.. ) Jazmyn From the.gremlin at verizon.net Tue Dec 10 04:47:22 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:47:22 -0000 Subject: Crushes on HP characters (OT)/Excusssse Me. In-Reply-To: <3DF56130.6E76EFC1@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48033 jazmyn wrote: "Actually I am among those who drool over Snape." Me too. "So, seeing a bitter, angry, bad tempered, sarcastic,witty, intelligent, brave, loyal and sexy (in a gothic sort of way) character tends to keep my interest peaked and causes me to waste good money on books, audio CDs, movies, plush-toy Golden Snitches/3 Headed Dogs and badly designed action figures with bits that fly out of them. No..no.. I'm not a fan.. really.. I just use them to keep the dust off the shelves.. thats it.." I bought a Snape doll and justified it by saying it was for my best friend. Well, I did give it to her, but that's no reason to spend an afternoon...inspecting the doll. She helped!! "Pity there are no 'real life' guys that interesting these days. I have NO interest in Sirius and can't see anything 'sexy' about him. Lupin is mildly interesting, but doesn't really do much for me. I think that if I ever met Snape in real life, I would run and turn the other way. He's too high-maintenence. Lupin's pretty cool, he's be sweet. If we saw more of him, I could probably develop a crush on him. Sirius, no. But I'm a Snape fan, and Snape fans tend to not like Sirius. "Lockhart reminds me of my first boyfriend and creeps me out big time..." I don't think anyone likes Lockhart. But does anyone find it interesting that Lupin and Snape are usually referred to as 'Lupin' and 'Snape', while Sirius is referred to as 'Sirius'? This was brought up a couple of posts ago, the significance of names. Jazmyn also said: "This was NOT aimed at offending anyone far as RELIGION goes, but aimed at showing that people in the WW may view the 'magic' practiced by said people as 'muggles who THINK they can do magic'." I have always wondered what wizards thought of those things. Do the even know that there are some people who think they can do magic? How would that work, anyway? "Otherwise, please understand that I was TRYING to present how a viewpoint of someone from the Wizarding World (if it did hypothetically exist) would see it." I can completely understand...literature can ruffle feathers sometimes. I didn't read your original post because I have this terrible habit of deleting posts that don't appear at first glance to be about Snape. That, and I'm thinking it was an offshoot of the Hagrid post, and that topic doesn't really interest me. "I mean really.. Could you see Snape's reaction if a muggle claimed they were cursing him by burning his name in the flames of a black candle or somesuch? Or Hermione's reaction?" Snape: 'You're kidding, right?' ::turns person into some fun creature and puts them in one of his jars:: This is an interesting topic. If the wizarding world DID exist, how would they feel about Muggles thinking they do magic? I think that the WW would be torn between pity (DD and Mr. Weasley, perhaps Mrs.) and malice (Snape and Hermione, and Malfoy). It would probably go along the lines of the way the WW is torn about the way they feel about Muggles in general. "At least I was on topic and not talking about house elves and wizards having relationships, though its not unreasonable to think they wouldn't when you look at all the half giants and others who have magical creatures as relatives. Love IS blind after all..." In looking at relationships between giants (supposedly 20 feet tall) and humans (6 feet tall), one can assume that there is a possibility. That part was the *only* part of Elkins's post that I read, because I always thought it was an interesting subject. And yes, love is blind. I'm obsessed with Alan Rickman, and he's 30 years older than I am. "(And no, shooting the owl was not meant to offend animal lovers either..It was meant as dark comedy. After all, I did like the movie Dogma, but despise platapuses..platapi? Whatever.. )" I loved that movie. The platapi/platapuses part was really funny...You should have done a disclaimer at the beginning. -Acire, who *really* *must* start her homework that's due for her 8AM class tomorrow... From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 06:12:32 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:12:32 -0000 Subject: Snape and Parseltongue (wasRe: Wands with no spells) In-Reply-To: <112.1b94e994.2b26b5d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48034 > Snape triggered that whole bit...and got a different reaction than he > intended. Which begs the question...is Snape a Parseltongue? And, for that > matter, why isn't Malfoy, whose whole family has been in Slytherin for > generations. Isn't Parseltongue one of the things Slytherin himself looked > for in his students? I don't have my book with me, but after Harry leaves the Duelling Club, and Hermione and Ron are explaining the concept, Harry says something like, "I suppose heaps of people here can do it", to which one of them replies, "No, it's a very rare gift". So it isn't surprising that Malfoy is *not* a Parselmouth, and neither does it say that Slytherin looked for Parseltongue in prospective students- he probably didn't, seeing as it s a very rare gift. As for Snape's reaction, I think this was a reaction similar to the rest of those present, except that Snape isn't exactly the hysterical type. Now, there are probably those who believe that Snape was instructed by Dumbledore to do something like this, in order to reveal Harry's talent, but I won't go into that. Roo From lmccabe at sonic.net Tue Dec 10 07:11:19 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:11:19 -0800 Subject: SHIP: Couples in the Potterverse (correction on Minerva's meaning) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48035 I've been so far behind reading this list for months, I'm just going to try and jump in where I have an opinion on a recent topic. The quickest thing up front is to correct Ashfae's posting on: "if Minerva McGonagall is the virgin goddess of the hunt I shall be very surprised." I would be too since that role belongs to Artemis/Diana and not Athena/Minerva. (I prefer the Greek over the Roman myths.) And since I'm taking the online persona of Athena who happens to be my favorite of all the myriad goddesses, I know for a fact that Athena was the goddess of wisdom and victory. She also dealt with artistry and was involved in weaving - leading to the forceful transfiguration of Arachne who had dissed not only Athena but all of the Olympian gods and goddesses by a blasphemous tapestry. Hmmm, Transfiguration, yes it is fitting. And contrary to other listies opinion's I still maintain firmly that Minerva McGonagall is not Ever So Evil! (BTW - small OT - is this the Ashfae of the Triple-S boards?) And as for the discussions of whether JKR is indicating Hr/R, H/Hr and H/G for future novels, I hadn't put much thought into that until I wrote a fanfic and decided I wanted to have Harry fall in love. Heck, I think the poor boy's going to be decapitated at the end of Book 7 so I'd like him to have a full life and to love and be loved in return. Call me a sap. Anyway, I wound up examining the different females characters in canon and realized that it worked best with Hermione. Someone early on in this discussion had brought up Ron's embarrassment when Hermione hugged him in PoA and had said that Hermione had hugged Harry many times and he was never embarrassed. WRONG! Thanks for playing. How about the very first time she hugged him? That was at the end of PS/SS p. 286 in Scholastic pb version, right before they both drink the potions. *** Hermione's lip trembled, and she suddenly dashed at Harry and threw her arms around him. "Hermione!" (italicized in book) "Harry -- you're a great wizard, you know." "I'm not as good as you," said Harry, very embarrassed, as she let go of him. "Me!" said Hermione. "Books! And cleverness! There are more important things -- friendship and bravery and -- oh Harry -- be careful!" *** Hmmm, to me it looks like Harry was more embarrassed by her hugging him than he was nervous about meeting Snape (which of course was Quirrellmort.) And then the next book where one would expect Hermione to hug Harry, after she was unpetrified - she didn't. p.339 Scholastic version Harry had been to several Hogwarts feasts, but never one quite like this. Everybody was in their pajamas, and the celebration lasted all night. Harry didn't know whether the best bit was Hermione running toward him, screaming, "You solved it! You solved it!" or Justin... (Interesting contrasting that to the MWMNBN in that she didn't hug him in the first one where it was specifically mentioned in the book and then she does in the second one where it is not in the book.) But my reading of this is that she recognized his embarrassment after her first hug when his life was in peril and she then started feeling very insecure about herself. She wanted to remain his close friend, so if she did hold any romantic feelings towards him that she'd keep them close to her vest. And that's why she *did not* hug him at the end of CoS. (I think she started falling for him right after he jumped on the troll's back to save her life. What a brave and stupid thing to do, then they became friends. But I think that's when she first started caring for him romantically. Well, as romantic as an eleven year old girl can be.) So on to the Ron/Hermione attraction. Yes, I see it in GoF, but...I don't know if Hermione feels that way towards Ron. If I were her, I'd be mightee insulted by him. I think that Ron has repeatedly insulted her over the years and she's been very hurt by that. Then this is taken to a new level before the ball when Ron thought that Hermione lied to Neville because no one would want to go with him the ball. Ron couldn't bring himself to believe that anyone else had even considered asking Hermione. Why is that? Because she didn't even rank high enough on the good looks scale for him. That was demonstrated by his rejoinder after she told him that she was going with someone, "No, you're not!" said Ron. "You just said that to get rid of Neville!" Read: Who the Hell besides Neville would ask you out? That would make him get under my skin because he's openly and repeatedly insulting me. And he also insulted her before he even deigned to ask her out. That was on pages 394-5 when Ron said, "We should get a move on, you know...ask someone. He's right. We don't want to end up with a pair of trolls." Trolls. You know the twelve foot mountain troll that almost killed Hermione back in book 1? The nasty, smelly, foul creature who terrorized her. Ron didn't even consider asking Hermione, he was concerned about not having to go out with a troll. Hermione wasn't even on his radar screen even though she was supposedly his other best friend. I'd be mighty insulted by that exchange. He compounded his insult by describing Eloise Midgen in very uncomplimentary terms - someone who Hermione thinks is "really nice." Looks are more important to him than anything else. And females, especially bookish females can feel very insecure about their own looks. That conversation wouldn't endear him to me in the least. Scholastic. p. 394 "Oh I see,"Hermione said, bristling. "So basically, you're going to take the best-looking girl who'll have you, even if she's completely horrible?" "Er - yeah, that sounds about right," said Ron. "I'm going to bed," Hermione snapped, and she swept off toward the girls' staircase without another word." *** You Go Grrrl. But I think she's also hurt that both of her close male friends seem now interested in girls and demonstrate that by staring at other girls. Hermione would have noticed that Harry slopped water down his shirt when he waved to Cho at the Quidditch World Cup. As well as her being exasperated with both Ron and Harry after their reaction to Veelas at the same match. She pulled Harry back to his seat and said, "Honestly." Maybe she did want Ron to ask her out and not as a last resort. I don't know. But after the troll crack and the doubting that anyone else besides Neville would ask her out - I'd be damned pissed at him. I'd also be re-evaluating any attraction I felt towards him. They argue hotly during and after the Yule Ball, but...that doesn't mean she likes Ron. And after the publication of the article in Witch Weekly Ron is pulverizing the counter with his pestle half a foot from his beetles. She avoids his eyes because he's glaring at her and crushing the desk with a pestle. I'd avoid looking at someone in the eye who was visibly angry with me. Hermione is embarrassed to talk about this and blushes - which could be that she doesn't want to admit it in front of Ron *or* Harry. I think one of the purposes of that Rita Skeeter article was to point out a love triangle - even though Harry doesn't see it. Something that Hermione feels towards Harry. He even denies it to Viktor who proclaims that Hermione talks to him all the time about Harry. I know that when I am talking with a guy (especially an attractive one that I've just met) that I want to make sure he realizes that I am not available, I will make some reference to being married. Long time ago, I'd say something about 'my boyfriend'....maybe she's being subtle and always talking about Harry to let Viktor know that she's not really interested in him. Viktor only asks about Harry and not Ron. To me that's significant, if she were trying to send a signal to Viktor that she really wasn't interested in developing a relationship with him. If she were interested in Ron, then Viktor might have asked Harry about a certain red haired guy that Hermione was always talking about. I also wonder how often Viktor and Hermione really talked because all we kno w about is when he asked her out, the Yule Ball, and the Second Task. From the conversation between Krum and Harry before Crouch, Sr. appeared, it made it seem like there must have been more interactions between the two. Makes me wonder, but it's just not described in the text. She may have mixed emotions about Ron *and* Harry which I think is probably closer to the truth. I know when I was in high school I was so afraid of rejection that I actually had several guys that I was interested in simultaneously. I was hoping that one of them would be interested in me, but that never materialized. That's because I was the brainy outspoken female that intimidated the hell out of the guys. NOT unlike a certain brainy female of the HPverse, hence why I seem to identify with her a lot. Anyway, I wouldn't doubt that she is attracted to both Harry and Ron. It's just that from her perspective it doesn't look like Harry is ever going to notice her in that way which then makes Ron a more likely target for her attention. That doesn't mean that she wouldn't rather having Harry as her boyfriend. And since it's through Harry's POV and we're still impatiently waiting for book 5 - we won't really know for awhile how it'll play out. I personally don't think she cares at all about Viktor. He asked her out and she said 'yes.' Why? Because she was 1) wanted to go to the Yule Ball with someone 2) was afraid no one else would ask her because she's such a brainiac 3) knew that she'd be the envy of the school if she went with Krum Selfish reasons, but it also felt good that someone had noticed her. Someone that legions of girls were swooning over because he was a celebrity. It certainly wasn't because of his looks. Remember, Hermione's initial response to seeing a picture of Krum was to say he looked "really grumpy." She's nice to Viktor, but I don't think she's interested in him. As for how Harry feels about Hermione? He did say that she was pretty at the Yule Ball. At first he said it was a pretty girl with Krum that he didn't know. Then later he realized it was Hermione his jaw dropped. Because she didn't look like the Hermione he knew at all. And entire paragraph of how she looked and how "Harry couldn't understand how he hadn't spotted it before." Now he's still crushing over Cho, so he's not about to switch his romantic interest in one fell swoop...but I just don't see that he'll get together with Cho after Cedric's death. I think Cho would be too scared to even think about dating a guy who was with her last boyfriend when he was murdered. She'd probably be worried about her own safety with a guy that seems to have a big Death Wish hanging over his head. There's also the difference in politics between Ron and Hermione. She is very interested in the social welfare of house-elves. He decidedly is not. He doesn't care one bit, but humors her and buys a badge basically to shut her up. William Lloyd Garrison once gave an extemporaneous speech regarding women's suffrage and compared its horrible reception by society with those who were opposed to the abolition of slavery. He called it "intelligent wickedness." That there are those who reject the light and knowingly commit evil. If they were simply ignorant than when they were shown the light they would recognize their error of their ways and work to repent and change. Those that reject the light will foam and fulminate in response and use brickbats. I'm not saying that Ron is eeeevil when it comes to house-elves, but he didn't react the way that is someone who is shown the light and recognizes that they were wrong. Instead he is very defensive and offensive on this matter. I still think that is very important and telling as to how R/H could work or not work as a couple later on. If my husband were rabidly anti-abortion - we would not be able to live in the same house let alone be a couple. That's because I'm a strong and vocal feminist. It would be explosively bad, bad, bad. And as for Harry/Ginny, to draw them together they'd actually have to you know, umm, talk to each other. I don't see much of that happening. Harry seems to hang around the Burrow at times over the summer and Ginny's in the background blushing and closing doors, but not really putting herself out there to get acquainted with him. Then again, he's now been able to see her in the common room and at the meal table for three years, but it doesn't seem like he knows her all that much. Harry does not seem all that interested in striking up conversations with the little sister of his best friend. She just seems to be there in the background at times and fawning over him. To me, it just doesn't seem like there's going to be much there. Unless of course she starts developing a killer figure and Harry realizes that having someone who looks like that wanting you is not a bad thing. I did a passage in my fanfic where Harry thinks about how Ginny has been crushing on him for years. "Harry had never really paid that much notice to her before because he had always felt embarrassed by the attention she paid to him. His first day of school she had practically squealed with delight when she heard that Fred and George had met him. She wanted to go on the train to meet a celebrity, but not the skinny little lost boy she had seen only minutes earlier. By the time he saw her the next year at the Burrow he knew that she had been fantasizing about Harry The Boy Who Lived Potter for almost a year. Between Rons letters home and their mums knitting a Christmas present for him, Ginny had to have heard a lot about him. She had to have dreamed about meeting him. Then when he came to her house the next summer after being rescued by her brothers, he was transformed from an invincible hero into a pitiable orphan starved by nasty relations. Harry knew that Ginny had idolized him even before Tom Riddle told him that she had spent countless diary entries detailing her feelings for him. Then he wound up saving her life and becoming her Saviour. He knew that she was in love with him, but he was afraid that she was only in love with the Legend and not the person. This is what made him feel uncomfortable, because he felt that it would be impossible to live up to her expectations." Ginny would need to show that she is more than just a lovestruck fan, but truly someone who cares for Harry for being the brave, cute, funny guy that he is. Knobbly knees, cowlick and all. But he doesn't seem to notice her much. I just skimmed the QWC stuff and she's barely mentioned in passing. In Harry's POV, she doesn't do much worth commenting on. Anyway, it was kind of fun going over the ambiguous canon on this matter. Frankly, JKR can go anyway she wants on this. I just really hope that Harry is allowed to experience love before she kills him off. I also want Sirius to drop his convict-on-the-run look and hopefully get exonerated in book five. Please, Jo let him stop living off rats! Athena http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/L_C_McCabe/ From alina at distantplace.net Tue Dec 10 07:25:28 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:25:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Excusssse me. References: <3DF5638F.907D8477@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <002901c2a01d$516feaa0$12206418@cr390913a> No: HPFGUIDX 48036 > It seems, that people took offense to my hinting that people in the WW > might 'pity' muggles who 'believe' they can cast spells. (ie. Pagan, > Voodoo, Shaman, Satanist, whatever.. also including any non-religion > based sympathetic magic or superstitions). This was NOT aimed at > offending anyone far as RELIGION goes, but aimed at showing that people > in the WW may view the 'magic' practiced by said people as 'muggles who > THINK they can do magic'. If people find this offensive because they DO > think they can do real magic, I invite them to come visit me and > levitate objects around the room or turn into an animal of their choice > to prove it... Otherwise, please understand that I was TRYING to present > how a viewpoint of someone from the Wizarding World (if it did > hypothetically exist) would see it. snip > Jazmyn I am a Wicca and I, for one, completely agree with you Jazmyn. The books were created to picture "wave a magic wand" type of magic, and that does only exist in fairy tales. As such it will always "win" in comparison to religious magic of the real world. Boy, wouldn't I like to be able to whip out a magic wand and voila! dishes are washing themselves! I think that it's rather fair to say that if the Harry Potter world accounted for religious magic, then wizards and witches would look at it funny and more than likely condescendingly. But then again, their magic is NOT religion. So, I think, that perhaps what we have here is a mix-up due to terminology. Religious magic and magic in HP books are obviously not the same magic, but because we use the same word, such conflicts may arise. Alina. From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Tue Dec 10 07:54:58 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:54:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: Correction on Minerva's meaning; thoughts on Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48037 > From: Linda C. McCabe > > The quickest thing up front is to correct Ashfae's posting on: "if Minerva > McGonagall is the virgin goddess of the hunt I shall be very surprised." I > would be too since that role belongs to Artemis/Diana and not > Athena/Minerva. (I prefer the Greek over the Roman myths.) And since I'm *smacks self in head* And I call myself a folklorist; this is what I get for answering posts in the middle of the night when I'm half-asleep. Thanks very much for pointing out my mistake; sorry if I confused anyone! (I'm firmly with you in the Minerva Is Not Ever So Evil category, for the record; it'd ruin her entire character if she were evil. Hurrah for strict but fair teachers!) > (BTW - small OT - is this the Ashfae of the Triple-S boards?) Probably. I don't think there's more than one of me running around, though it's always possible I have an evil twin. Or a split personality. Yeah, it's not my fault I mixed up Minerva and Diana, it was that *other* Ashfae...*gryn* Here's something that often bothers me. Does anyone else feel that Lupin gets a bit of a raw deal? I'm not referring to the fact that he's a werewolf, everyone's prejudiced, yadda yadda...what I mean is that all through Goblet of Fire, whenever Harry was longing for an adult to confide in and wrote to Sirius, I kept wanting to kick him for never considering Lupin. Fer crying out loud, Remus was one of James Potter's best friends as well, and Harry knows him *better* than he knows Sirius! Did all those Patronus lessons mean nothing? Bah humbug. Entirely possible that I'm just a Remus fan who was miffed that he didn't appear in book four, I suppose, but still...if he was such a popular DADA teacher, I wish more of the students (or at least Harry/Ron/Hermione) remembered him! Ashfae From tmarends at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 08:23:13 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (Tim ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:23:13 -0000 Subject: Couples in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megalynn S." wrote: > Now I did start believing that Ron and Hermione were ment to be > together. But the more I look at it the more and more cliche it > looks. Yes they would make an adoreable couple, yes it is quite > clear that Ron fancys the pants off Hermione but IIRC JKR say that > each of the main characters would fall for Mr/Miss Wrong. I believe > that Hermione is Rons Miss Wrong. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I believe the quote was that everyone was in love with the wrong person in > book four, meaning Hermione/Krum, Harry/Cho, and Ron/Fleur > Ran and Hermione are meant to be! > > Megalynn > Can we get a house elf on this, please?? I thought the JKR quote was that they all went to the Yule Ball with the wrong person. Tim From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 23:30:39 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:30:39 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Hermione the Blackmailer References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48039 Tanya:"Does Hermione understand the potentially calamitous consequences of releasing Skeeter with this information?" We have no evidence that Hermione relesed Skeeter at all, just the fact that she intended to. Perhaps she handed her over to Dumbledore or trapped her in her animagus form or something else. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 10 03:22:53 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:22:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] A plot parallel: Playing Dirty Message-ID: <1c3.2beb150.2b26b80d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48040 In a message dated 12/9/02 10:14:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, seaducer9 at comcast.net writes: > Actually, not to split hairs, but isn't blackmailing more of a personal gain > thing? > It seems to me what Hermione was doing was making a deal with Skeeter. > In other words, what Hermione and Co. are getting is that Skeeter cannot > lie > to the public for at least a year, or risk legal action(something I > wouldn't > mind in the real world). > Now, if Hermione told Skeeter that she wanted xx$ for keeping her mouth > shut, that would be a different story. Good point. I do however have a problem with unintentional consequences. Does Hermione realize that Skeeter is directly responsible for Fudge the MoM choosing to not believe Harry? All other possibilities aside, as long as the MoM and Fudge can believe that Harry is nuts, they don't have to believe LV is back. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From seaducer9 at comcast.net Tue Dec 10 03:37:06 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (snakehunter9022 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:37:06 -0000 Subject: Wands with no spells In-Reply-To: <112.1b94e994.2b26b5d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48041 Hello all, Cheryl wrote: > Which begs the question...is Snape a Parseltongue? And, for that > matter, why isn't Malfoy, whose whole family has been in Slytherin for > generations. Isn't Parseltongue one of the things Slytherin himself looked > for in his students? >From what I remember being a Parseltongue is very rare, and would seem that mostly the Dark wizards have that ability, which would make sense as many myths and legends hold the snake to be a servant of evil. As for the Slytherin part, perhaps that is the reason the Sorting Hat found Harry difficult? Drew Z. From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Dec 10 04:03:27 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:03:27 -0600 Subject: Thoughts on Hagrid's wand References: <00dc01c29ff5$25304700$01a2cdd1@RVotaw> Message-ID: <3DF5678F.5251A3E@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48042 Note that in fact, Diagon Alley is NOT the only place to buy a wand.. Hagrid (or anyone else) COULD in fact get a wand in another country from another wand maker.. or maybe they have a used wand shop in Knockturn Alley that we never hear about. People seem to act like the only person who sells wands to anyone in the WW is Ollivander's. Note: Gregorovitch made Krum's wand.. Fleur Delacour's wand had one of her grandmother's hairs in it.. Did someone in her family make it for her? Its not impossible to assume that a person can in fact make their own wand if they know how to, though I'm not sure Hagrid is quite that tallented...though he DOES have connections for core items like unicorn hairs and stuff... Being as the British MOM has no jurisdiction in other countries on who someone can sell a wand to there, someone could conceivably buy a wand in another country and smuggle it back... Plus there's Knockturn Alley and who KNOWS what can get got for a price there.. Jazmyn From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Dec 10 12:36:30 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:36:30 -0000 Subject: Correction on Minerva's meaning; thoughts on Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Ashfae wrote: >> Here's something that often bothers me. Does anyone else feel that > Lupin gets a bit of a raw deal? I'm not referring to the fact that he's a > werewolf, everyone's prejudiced, yadda yadda...what I mean is that all > through Goblet of Fire, whenever Harry was longing for an adult to confide > in and wrote to Sirius, I kept wanting to kick him for never considering > Lupin. Fer crying out loud, Remus was one of James Potter's best friends > as well, and Harry knows him *better* than he knows Sirius! Did all those > Patronus lessons mean nothing? Bah humbug. Entirely possible that I'm just > a Remus fan who was miffed that he didn't appear in book four, I suppose, > but still...if he was such a popular DADA teacher, I wish more of the > students (or at least Harry/Ron/Hermione) remembered him! > I think that the answer for that lies in Harry's thought at he very beginning of GoF, when he's first trying to decide who he should write to: "What he really wanted (and it felt almost shameful to admit it to himself) was someone like -- someone like a *parent*." (GoF, UK paperback, pg 25) He doesn't want DADA, he wants Dad, and Lupin has never attempted to present himself as a father figure. He was a brilliant and compassionate teacher, and he probably *is* better qualified than Sirius to deal the problem at hand, but he never gave the impression of being emotionally accessible, and that's what Harry was looking for. Sirius is the one who had offered Harry a home away from the Dursleys, he'd been writing to Harry all summer and had specifically encouraged Harry to call on him if he needed anything. So when Harry had a problem he was frightened and ashamed about, I think it's natural that he went to Sirius, even though Remus makes a lot more practical sense. (For one thing, Remus could've helped without risking arrest or death in the process.) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 12:55:04 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:55:04 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crushes on characters/ Why Snape appeals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48044 Ezzie wrote: >"If you're a Snape fan, ask yourself when the inclinations (obsession?) >began." Me: Obsession? Oh dear, I hope not. First off, I'm a straight male. I am a very committed Snape fan, and I have to admit, this thread has given me serious pause for thought. Why do I like Snape? He is painted as one of the more unpleasant characters in the canon, and indeed reminds me of several individuals I have had the misfortune to meet in reality and who I would (and do) cross the street to avoid. So why do I find him so fascinating? Well, for me it's not sexual. If I want to get really Freudian (in response to all the Jungian analysis thus far) there may be a subconscious homo-erotic impulse, but if there is, it's very sub-conscious. I am drawn to Snape for different reasons. Some of it may be Snape's polarity. He is a fish out of water. He's a man who is certainly in the wrong job, and he spends a great deal of time grappling with his own emotional issues. He is flawed, and very obviously flawed. He is distant, yet you get the impression that if he deigned to spend the time having a conversation with you, he would have plenty of interesting and insightful things to say. He exerts a great deal of control over himself. We see him losing it in PoA, but this is rare for Snape. In general, he keeps the beast in it's cage, and we only see it through the bars. In many ways he reminds me of a character like D'Arcy in Pride and Prejudice. I think that there is something very charismatic about that sense of powerful control. Now, is this anything got to do with aspects of my own life? Well, I suppose that I am in some ways a fish out of water: I'm a sociologist who has specialised in the lives and social conventions of children, and as such have spent a great deal of my career as the only male member of staff among women (much has been made of Snape's role as Potions master - vaginal symbolism etc). I have experienced prejudice from some females who assume that my involvement with children must be suspect, purely because of my masculinity. I am also from a working class background, and the academic world in Ireland is very middle-class. This too has led to prejudice. Growing up in Ireland, because of my British parentage and having been born in Brighton, I spoke with a very middle class English accent, once again marginalisng me and making me different. I like to think of myself as controlled, but don't think that I'm *as* controlled (repressed?) as Snape. I do admire his intellectual brilliance, which I suppose any academic would aspire towards. I think that what draws you towards a character in a book is some sense that the character connects in a real way with something in *you*. There has to be some sense of familarity, something to identify with. I think that what makes JKR such a talented writer is that the characters in HP are so real, so flawed, so *human* (even those that aren't 100% human!) that it's easy, even effortless for us to identify with them in some way or other. There are times when I feel for Hagrid, who seems so needy, so child-like; times when I'm right there with Sirius in his anguish and lust for revenge, his almost adolescent need to make things better; times when I can almost share Lupin's exhaustion as he tries to tame the monster inside himself for yet another agonising month; times when I admire Dumbledore for his noble, gentle nature, but yet other times when I question his motives. This is what makes the Potterverse so rich and vibrant, a true tapestry of human experience and interaction. Shane. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 13:03:36 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:03:36 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48045 Jazzmyn wrote: >It seems, that people took offense to my hinting that people in the WW >might 'pity' muggles who 'believe' they can cast spells. (ie. Pagan, >Voodoo, Shaman, Satanist, whatever.. also including any non-religion based >sympathetic magic or superstitions). This was NOT aimed at offending anyone >far as RELIGION goes, but aimed at showing that people in the WW may view >the 'magic' practiced by said people as 'muggles who THINK they can do >magic'. Me: Don't worry Jazzmyn, this is *not* a howler. The post just got me thinking about the whole issue of magic and religion in the canon. We hear much talk of "ancient magic" and love and tolerance, but from what I've read about the canon and within the canon, there is a noticeble lack of religion. In the WW magic is just a fact of life, and the study of magic is like us Muggles studying Physics or Chemistry. So, is there no religion in the WW? To the best of my knowledge, religion exists in all human cultures in some shape or form, even atheists have some spiritual beliefs or opinions if you sit them down and talk about it for long enough. So where does this fit in in HP? I'm damn sure that JKR didn't leave it out just to be PC. That just wouldn't be like her. Any thoughts? Shane _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 03:18:05 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:18:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Snape didn't go to the infirmary Message-ID: <20021210031805.8588.qmail@web40503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48046 This was mentioned a while ago: Why didn't Snape go to the hospital wing after Fluffy bit him? Somebody said (can't find the exact message) that it's because he didn't want Madam Pomfrey to know he'd been to "visit" Fluffy, but that doesn't really make sense to me. Dumbledore obviously trusts Snape, so Snape shouldn't really be worried about what anybody else might think. But, recall Harry saying at the end to Ron and Hermione that he thinks Dumbledore orchestrated the entire adventure with the PS, giving Harry clues where he needed them. So, my point is this: Snape limping around Hogwarts was another clue Dumbledore gave Harry. This actually brings to mind MAGIC DISHWASHER, if one believes it - Dumbledore-the-puppeteer, and Snape helping him (read: pushing Harry in the right direction to generate the result Dumbledore wants). Snape does "get a very raw deal," doesn't he? Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Dec 10 13:37:50 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:37:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crushes on HP characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48047 Maria: > Did anyone else have a huge crush on Prof Lupin? Actually, I myself am more with the Snape crowd. Though I have dreams of attacking the man with love, if the opportunity ever arised I don't think I'd be brave enough. I often wonder what would happen if Severus were a real person and he found out all these women (and even men) are infactuated with him. ~Cassie~ Of course I have to mention my love for Lucius Malfoy and Professor Quirrell...Why do I love them, you ask? Five words: Jason Isaacs and Ian Hart *ducks flying blender* I know...bringing the movies into this=bad thing, I know. But it's true. Had it not been for those actors I would've never given the characters a second thought ^^ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 10 14:10:23 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:10:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Parseltongue (wasRe: Wands with no spells) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48048 In a message dated 12/10/02 1:14:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, pat_mahony at hotmail.com writes: > and neither does it say that Slytherin looked for Parseltongue in > prospective > students- he probably didn't, seeing as it s a very rare gift. Not in that part, but later...Dumbledore to Harry: "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 the rules," So, while not a requirement, it does seem to be an important criterion. Hm. I could see someone who does have the gift and knows the WW's attitude toward it keeping quiet about it, too. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 00:51:58 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:51:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crushes on HP characters/Re:Crush on teachers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210005158.82272.qmail@web40503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48049 "muttick2001 " wrote: >Did anyone else have a huge crush on Prof Lupin? >I'm really hoping he'll be in the next book. I beleive he >will be, >because I think Dumbledore sent him and others an owl in >the last >book. I found his wry amusement and calm manner >brilliant. Anyone >else agree? Me: Oh, I absolutely agree, Lupin is my favourite character. He is great! I'm also glad that he will be in Book 5 - that's already certain, I think. Was this talked about in any interview? Acire wrote: >Acire, who wonders how this post got so long, and wants to >know if >anyone has ever paired Lupin with anybody. Me: To me Lupin seems much too nice for anybody already present in the books. Maybe if there was some *very nice* other character, it could be. Acire also wrote: >A lot of the female students had crushes on Lockhart, too, >and no >one seemed to have a problem with that. DD probably knew >that a lot >of the female students would find him attractive, but he >didn't seem >to do anything about it. Maybe he just figured to let >nature run >it's course. Well, it wouldn't be too fair to handsome people if they couldn't be hired as teachers if students had crushes on them, would it? At school we always had a number of handsome teachers, but it didn't bother anyone. Besides, a *crush* is one thing, and *love* is another. "Crush" implies superficial affection. Lupin and Snape don't strike me as people you could have a crush on, but you could well fall in love with both of them - I know I did. Maria, who really should be studying for finals --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 12:27:47 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:27:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48050 I think that this site is so great, but obviously since 2000, alot of the things that I have always pondered about have already been discussed. So I feel like I missed everything a bit. And I know that the Snape loves Lily topic has been gone over a million times, but I do not know is this particular piece of "evidence" for this theory has been mentioned. I think it is almost natural for people to come up with the Snape/Lily thing, it explains alot. But it is very hard to find actualy proof in the book. We all know that Snape never mentiones Lily. But I think we have to look at what he DOES NOT say about her. Both Draco and Lucius Malfoy make comments to Harry, that he will meet the same end as his parents. And they make these comments in response to Harry's behavior. When Snape responds to the same type of behavior in the same fashion he says that Harry will end up like his father. Sixhoursahead From MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Dec 10 14:28:52 2002 From: MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM (mitchbailey82 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:28:52 -0000 Subject: Why Snape didn't go to the infirmary In-Reply-To: <20021210031805.8588.qmail@web40503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Kirilenko wrote: > > This was mentioned a while ago: Why didn't Snape go to the hospital wing after Fluffy bit him? > > Somebody said (can't find the exact message) that it's because he didn't want Madam Pomfrey to know he'd been to "visit" Fluffy, but that doesn't really make sense to me. Dumbledore obviously trusts Snape, so Snape shouldn't really be worried about what anybody else might think. > Me: I've always thought that this was used as an opportunity to show Snapes relationship with Filch. Snape obviously trusts him (well enough to ask him for help with a injured leg) I've also thought that the reason he didn't want to go to Pomfrey is because he wanted Quirrell to think that he (Snape) was working on his own (maybe for his own goals) and not necessarily with Dumbledore. The thing that strikes me at the end of PS is that although Voldermort knows that Snape was trying to stop Quirrell he doesn't have proof that Snape wasn't just working as a 'free agent'. Michelle From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 12:22:58 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:22:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's Point of View, and the Halloween murders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48052 I think that obviously Halloween is a very significant date in the wizarding world, but I do find it interesting that this significance isn't really mentioned in the book. The fact that Lily and James died on Halloween is almost mentioned in passing. And I always wondered why Harry never felt more upset on his parents' death anniversary. I mean, sure, he grew up never knowing that his parents died on that day, so I can understand why he doesn't fall into a depression or anything, but now that he knows, there is no mention that he ever thinks about this. Also, I cannot possibly imagine what Headless Nick's Deathday being on Halloween has to do with Lily and James dying on Halloween, but I have a sneaking suspicion, there might be. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Anne R Urbanski wrote: > Hi all, I did a search (with the "search" feature, of course) through about > the last 10,000 messages and couldn't find this mentioned... but it seems > to me that it's very important that JKR wrote these books in third- person > but from Harry's point of view, rather than third-person omniscient. To me, > these stories are "about Harry" not merely because he's the focal point of > the action, but because he's the only character whose thoughts we're privy > to, whose head we actually get inside. If the POV was third-person > omniscient, Harry could still be the focal point of the action, but JKR > would be able to reveal not only Harry's thoughts but the other characters' > as well. Of course that would make their motivations a lot easier to > determine, but JKR really does want us to experience Hogwarts and the > wizarding world through Harry's eyes, so like Harry, we can't be 100% sure > of why anyone else says or does what s/he says or does. I'd carry this > further but (a) I haven't thought about it long enough to write something > really "deep" (plus I'm not really a deep thinker) and (b) I'm really tired > because I stayed up waayyy too late the last few nights reading HP fanfic > (sick, I know... and I have Y'ALL to thank for that! LOL) > > Also, on a more sober note, has anyone discussed the significance of > Voldemort killing James and Lily on Halloween? I'd appreciate pointers to > any previous posts about this. > Anne U > (needs a spell for "how to pop in for a brief spell") > > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our > abilities."? - Albus Dumbledore, in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" > > "Anyone could be the one to change your life" -- Monte Montgomery > http://www.montemontgomery.com From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 12:41:41 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:41:41 -0000 Subject: Wands with no spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora " wrote: > What I > am wondering is: does a wizard need to "think" of the spell? We > all know they can cast a spell with the wand, but I'm thinking they > would at least need to think of the spell they want to use. Does > that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some way? > Telepathy, or something of the like? > > Alora I would think that there obviously has to be some sort of mental process. How else would you explain magical talent It obviously is not all about correct enunciation and wand movement. Some wizards will never have the ability to perform certain spells, or perform them well, regardless of the words they learn. From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 12:44:30 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:44:30 -0000 Subject: Why don't they just Apparate? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48054 I have always been confused why people that know they are about to be cursed do not just Apparate. Ok, sure sometimes they might not be quick enough (hard to imagine or they are surprised, or they are like Lily and James who cannot leave a baby behind. But I just cannot believe that the Death Eaters were able to murder so many wizards. Is it possible that there are forms of Dark Magic that can strip another wizard of his powers temporarily, that maybe actually block them from using Apparition? From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 13:04:32 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:04:32 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48055 Ok, I searched for this and did not see anything, so fogive me if it has already been done. But I have this awful horrible feelings that Ron Weasley and perhaps the twins are going to be tempted to the Dark Side or betrayal for money. I know I know, Ron would never do that. But JK definitely upped the significance of the Weasley's poverty GoF just when she has set the stage for "now is the time to see who will choose what". And also ron talks about how he believes the twins would do almost anything for money (though this may be alleviated by Harry's gift). But the amount of comments by Ron along the line of "Why is everything I own rubbish", are greatly increased. Along with his bitterness at Harry's relative wealth (something we had not seen in any of the other books). I think that without a doubt something is being set up here. I mean we cannot just think that the Trio are going to go through these dark years ahead of them with absoulutely no threat to their loyalty and frienship with each other. And Ron's attitude towards money in GoF, makes me nervous! From dorigen at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:34:30 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:34:30 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48056 Shane says: >We hear much talk >of "ancient magic" and love and tolerance, but from what I've read about >the >canon and within the canon, there is a noticeble lack of religion. In the >WW magic is just a fact of life, and the study of magic is like us Muggles >studying Physics or Chemistry. So, is there no religion in the WW? To the >best of my knowledge, religion exists in all human cultures in some shape >or >form, even atheists have some spiritual beliefs or opinions if you sit them >down and talk about it for long enough. So where does this fit in in HP? >I'm damn sure that JKR didn't leave it out just to be PC. That just >wouldn't be like her. Perhaps not, but leaving it out to be *polite* (which in my opinion only occasionally overlaps with "being PC") would undoubtedly be like her. Even more likely would be a conscious decision to just Not Go There. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 15:50:23 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 07:50:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210155023.36006.qmail@web13002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48057 "sixhoursahead " wrote: I think it is almost natural for people to come up with the Snape/Lily thing, it explains alot. But it is very hard to find actualy proof in the book. We all know that Snape never mentiones Lily. But I think we have to look at what he DOES NOT say about her. Both Draco and Lucius Malfoy make comments to Harry, that he will meet the same end as his parents. And they make these comments in response to Harry's behavior. When Snape responds to the same type of behavior in the same fashion he says that Harry will end up like his father. Me: It is true that people proposing a Snape/Lily relationship are reading between the lines. Snape also mentions James Potter's bit of talent on the Quidditch pitch somewhat bitterly, leading one to assume it was in fact no small thing. In general, these two comments of Snape's lead one to the impression that it is because of James that Snape seems to dislike Harry so greatly. Is it because Snape wanted everything James had, the Quidditch skill, the friends, being Head Boy, and in addition to all that, Lily? That is unclear. What we do know: --James played Quidditch --James was Head Boy --James married Lily --James saved Snape from Remus Lupin/Sirius Black It's not much. However--reading between the lines, one might assume that a) Snape played on the Slytherin team and did not do well when playing against Gryffindor (we know from JKR that James was in Gryffindor, even though that's not technically in the books); also, although it is not clear that Snape was in the same year as James, there is also nothing in canon saying they WEREN'T. Therefore, IF they were in the same year, since James was Head Boy, then clearly Snape couldn't have been Head Boy, which I could definitely see being a point of annoyance with him. Again, by process of elimination, we see that since James married Lily, she therefore did not marry Snape (unless they divorced before she married James, which seems unlikely). Any possible relationship between Snape and Lily would more likely have occurred when they were in school, which would mean her relationship with James would come after, which would in turn lead one to conclude that she preferred James over Severus (although, if this DID occur, there is still the possibility that Snape ended the relationship). Admittedly, a possible Snape/Lily relationship may not be necessary to explain Snape's animosity toward James, but in that this is the sort of thing that might cut deeper than merely losing the Quidditch cup or not being named Head Boy, I think it has been an appealing explanation for the depth of feeling he seems to have against both the father and son. Added to that, this boy whom he disliked and seemed to resent SAVED HIS LIFE. Ouch. It's difficult to go on resenting someone who saved your life. But, of course, James didn't stop playing Quidditch after that, he was Head Boy, and he married Lily, so Snape managed . Perhaps the reason Snape told Harry he'd end up like his father is that Snape (who came back to Dumbledore's side BEFORE Voldemort's fall, according to Dumbledore, in the Pensieve) was trying to eliminate what he perceived to be a debt to James by trying to save HIS life, balancing the scales. If this occurred, Snape was then thwarted in this attempt by Peter's betrayal--which he may have perceived as a direct result of James ignoring some advice he (Snape) had given him on how to secure his family's safety. (Although at the time it must have seemed that he was thwarted by Sirius, yet another person whom he hated, and who nearly got Snape killed when they were in school.) Since Snape has been protecting Harry at various times since arriving at Hogwarts and Harry's behavior sometimes seems to throw this in his face, perhaps he had been thinking that he can pay his debt to James by protecting his son, and he is irked by Harry's reckless behavior, which is making paying the debt very, very difficult. (I believe this is the real reason for his being so irate at the beginning of CoS, when he is upbraiding Harry and Ron for the flying car incident.) So, while there is no clear evidence that Snape and Lily were ever an item, I believe you are correct that it may be significant to note that Snape doesn't ever say anything AGAINST her, unlike his comments about James. It's thin, but I have a suspicion that JKR doesn't do things like this without reason, and that it is unlikely for Snape's main gripes about James to be Quidditch and the Head Boy position, or even being thwarted in protecting James' life, if that did in fact occur. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 15:52:37 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:52:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48058 Janet:"So, is there no religion in the WW? To the best of my knowledge, religion exists in all human cultures in some shape or form, even atheists have some spiritual beliefs or opinions if you sit them down and talk about it for long enough. So where does this fit in in HP?" We do see signs of at least traditions observed in the wizard world. What are the two holidays that close the school? Christmas and Easter. There are Christmas trees [an adopted pagan tradition] and carols sung. So at least some Christian traditions are observed, although what piety or lack of it that lies beneath it is a mystery. You would think there has to be some religion somewhere. Some of the students must come to school with religious beliefs, at least those from the Muggle world. And you're right that every human society we know of has something that qualifies as religion. But why must we find it in JKR's work? How many novels based in our own Muggle world mention religion? A few, but not many. Most have no indication whatsoever that religion exists. I always imagined that religion exists in the wizard world about like it does in ours; most people aren't observant, some are, and generally don't include it much in their daily lives and conversations. From naama2486 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 16:18:32 2002 From: naama2486 at yahoo.com (naama2486 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:18:32 -0000 Subject: Why don't they just Apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sixhoursahead " wrote: > I have always been confused why people that know they are about to be > cursed do not just Apparate. Ok, sure sometimes they might not be > quick enough (hard to imagine or they are surprised, or they are like > Lily and James who cannot leave a baby behind. But I just cannot > believe that the Death Eaters were able to murder so many wizards. > Is it possible that there are forms of Dark Magic that can strip > another wizard of his powers temporarily, that maybe actually block > them from using Apparition? Me: I think it's more of a matter of dignity. A wizard who takes flight in a middle of a duel only for being shot at is not that impressing. Apparition seems to me the easy way out of these situations, but not the dignified one. It's difficult to say about "Apparition-blocking spells". We know Hogwarts has such protection, but then again, Hogwarts is so old that the spell is probably some ancient magic now lost ... Also, most wizards don't Apparate at all. In GoF, Arthur Weasley says that many of the WW preferred other means of transportation, and that a lot of wizards don't even bother to learn it. So maybe they don't Apparate because they can't. Besides, we're forgetting that in combat, instinct works faster than logic. Apparition doesn't seem to me like an instinctive thing, but rather a complicated action that requires force of mind. Just a couple of thoughts, --Naama the New [ who is now left to reflect scenes where a wizard disappears in the nick of time to dodge a curse (prefferably a deadly one), only to appear again behind his attacker. Wand poised. ] From crussell at arkansas.net Tue Dec 10 16:19:34 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:19:34 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sixhoursahead " wrote: > But the amount of comments by Ron along the line of "Why is everything I own rubbish", are greatly increased. Along > with his bitterness at Harry's relative wealth (something we had not seen in any of the other books). I think that without a doubt > something is being set up here. I mean we cannot just think that the Trio are going to go through these dark years ahead of them with > absoulutely no threat to their loyalty and frienship with each > other. And Ron's attitude towards money in GoF, makes me nervous! I noticed this also-the increase in Ron's lamenting his poverty. IMO, this issue has not been resolved as far as Ron is concerned. Even after Ron and Harry make-up in GoF, Ron is still making comments about his poverty. Also, Harry is still learning how to handle this obviously sore spot (he gives the twins money for Ron's new dress robes-but tells them to say it came from them). IMO, the door has definitely been left opened between them concerning this element of their relationship-and JKR will take it up again in future books. Whether or not it will lead to a temptation for Ron-I sincerely hope not. But I do believe it will lead to more conflict between the two boys-with Hermione again walking the tightrope between them. bugaloo37 From naama2486 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 16:42:59 2002 From: naama2486 at yahoo.com (naama2486 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:42:59 -0000 Subject: Wizards and their eye-wear Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48061 Hi, all! I've been wondering about something- whenever a student at Hogwarts gets sick, hurt, beaten, cursed at, whatever they get to Madam Pomfrey, and get cured farely quickly. And she's only a nurse. So, if magical medicine is so advanced, how come so many wizards still have glasses?! Are they so attached to their spectacles that they won't magically rid themselves of them? I wear glasses since I was six, and I know that if I had a magical solution I'd use it. Thoughts, anyone? --Naama the New, Returned from Darkness P.S. Can you imagine Wizards with contact lens? From lmccabe at sonic.net Tue Dec 10 17:24:04 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:24:04 -0800 Subject: Crushes on characters (why Sirius appeals to me) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48062 Okay, to just change the theme a little from Snape to another character... Someone had asked before when you first started identifying or being drawn to a character. Sirius Black is by far my favorite character in the Potterverse, but I don't think I started feeling that way after reading PoA or even GoF for the first time. I think it had to have been after about the second or third time through as I sifted through all the myriad clues of evidence, etc. that I started reflecting on his pathos and it got to me. I started feeling the draw of the hurt-comfort emotional model towards him. I wanted to do what JKR has refused to do for Sirius, provide him a sanctuary and give him comfort. This long-suffering wrongly accused and imprisoned man has been living on the run for two years living off of rats and other vermin, sleeping in forests and caves. Yeeesh, all I want to do it to give him a nice warm bath, get rid of those nasty robes he's lived in for fourteen years now, get rid of the fleas and ticks he's picked up from the Forbidden Forest, give him a nice hot meal and then comfort him from the demons that have been haunting him for years. I want to provide him human companionship, something he's been denied for far too long. Yes, I want to give him comfort and ease his pain. Heavy sigh. And then because he still is a fugitive, he'd be afraid to leave the sanctuary I was willing to provide him. He'd be mine, all mine. All you Snape fans can dream about how angsty and misunderstood your Severus is, I am interested in his nemesis. This is from an adult woman who has never felt drawn to a fictional character before. Athena http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/L_C_McCabe/Sirius_Blacks_Secret_Love/ From midgiecat at aol.com Tue Dec 10 18:01:26 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:01:26 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 2329 Thoughts on Hagrid's wand Message-ID: <5b.328dcc93.2b2785f6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48063 > Being as the British MOM has no jurisdiction in other countries on who > someone can sell a wand to there.............. I was under the impression that the Ministry of Magic was just that, the Ministry of Magic, all inclusive, not just for Britain. It was never called the MOM-Britain. Another point, I felt the headmaster/mistress of schools from the other countries seemed to be under the jurisidiction/control of Crouch, Fudge, Bagman, et al during the TWT, and remember Karkoroff being questioned during the reign of VM - surely if the MOM was just for Britain he would have been questioned in his own country under their MOM. I think the Ministry of Magic encompasses wizards everywhere. Brenda Wendelken [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wen4124 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 16:41:51 2002 From: wen4124 at yahoo.com (w charles) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:41:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Sirius and The Prank... In-Reply-To: <4j2vuush6lcqp27c1vcf62jv0o0b6h2k1h@4ax.com> Message-ID: <20021210164151.23422.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48064 Monika Huebner wrote: On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:47:05 EST, Lynx412 at aol.com wrote: >I agree that we don't know all there is to know about The Prank. A lot >of what's been said doesn't add up. I like Ellen's suggestion that Peter may >have been behind it. My biggest question, though, is why was Snape harassing >and following them? The implication, that the relationships resemble that of >the current trio, is Snape = Malfoy. But still doesn't explain why, aside >from House hostility. Harry & Draco have a family history and background that >triggers their actions. We don't know anything about Snape's familiar background. Maybe he comes from an old wizarding family, too. When asked where all the money came from that Harry inherited, JKR has once said that James came from a wealthy family and didn't have to work for a living. We have no information on James' family at all (yet), therefore it's very difficult to guess where that animosity actually came from. Does anyone know for sure that Snape was in Slytherin House? There house years are 5 boys and 5 girls new each year. The 5 from Harry's are Harry, Ron, Seamus, Dean and Neville. From James' house are James, Sirius, Remus, Peter, and ???? There is no mention of the 5th name. I wonder if Snape is the 5th, and he was regarded then as Neville is now. If this is possible, then wouldn't Snape a Griffindor, be the perfect spy to Voldie, and the perfect head of house to Slytherin. Someone the DD trusts. We have read on many times that DD depends highly on Snape, and trusts him. Why would he do so if he Snape was truly evil. --"w charles" --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From daniel.brent at cwctv.net Tue Dec 10 17:36:59 2002 From: daniel.brent at cwctv.net (evenflow200214 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:36:59 -0000 Subject: "They were meddlesome fools too" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48065 What does Lucius mean by "meddlesome fools"? Could this comment to Harry have something to do with what James and Lily did? Notice, he uses "they" implying both of them... What did they interfere in? And how are they similar to Harry? --"Daniel Brent" From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 10 17:56:46 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:56:46 EST Subject: Weasleys and Weatherbys Message-ID: <24.316a91a0.2b2784de@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48066 There's another interesting aspect I have been thinking about. It's the Weatherby bit. I thought that Crouch Sr.'s mistake about Percy's name might have been a clue to what was happening, but LV doesn't attack him until *after* the QWC. So, why does Percy never correct his boss about his name. Why doesn't Mr. Weasley ever do so? Is it possible that Percy isn't using his right surname in the ministry? perhaps our oh-so-ambitious Percy feels his father's name is a hazard in his chosen career and is using instead his mother's maiden name? Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cid62 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 18:13:35 2002 From: cid62 at yahoo.com (Cindy ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:13:35 -0000 Subject: Worldwide Ministry? was, Thoughts on Hagrid's wand In-Reply-To: <5b.328dcc93.2b2785f6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, midgiecat at a... wrote: > I was under the impression that the Ministry of Magic was just that, the > Ministry of Magic, all inclusive, not just for Britain. It was never called > the MOM-Britain. > > Another point, I felt the headmaster/mistress of schools from the other > countries seemed to be under the jurisidiction/control of Crouch, Fudge, > Bagman, et al during the TWT, and remember Karkoroff being questioned during > the reign of VM - surely if the MOM was just for Britain he would have been > questioned in his own country under their MOM. > > I think the Ministry of Magic encompasses wizards everywhere. Hello there....this is my first post on this group (although I have been lurking for a while). I'd like to respectfully counter (not a flame, just an alternate POV) this theory with two facts mentioned in the books: 1. There is a Department of International Magical Cooperation - why have one of those if there is only one Ministry? 2. There is a Bulgarian Minister of Magic (Obalonsk?) mentioned in GOF. Surely he heads a Bulgarian ministry. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. When I was writing my fic I actually thought about this issue quite a bit. (I ended up creating an American Department of Magic, which has multiple sub- departments and is very bureaucratic, much like the actual US government.) Now Voldemort--I could see him wanting to head a worldwide magical dictatorship.... Cheers, Cindy From sgarfio at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 18:21:28 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:21:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] TIME TURNER-CAN YOU GROW OLD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210182128.73990.qmail@web21414.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48068 KuhKuh Lynn wrote: > If you went back say 40 years > would you have to wait 40 years until you reached the correct time of > when you went back in time? Also, can you grow old and die while you > are using the time turner or is your age frozen? That would look > really odd if one second you were 10 and the next 40 because you had > been in the past so long, but that is what it would look like to > someone going through normal time. Thanks! Obviously this question requires a Trekkie's insight. The quick answer: yes, you can grow old while you are using the TT. This would imply certain limitations on its use. We have no canon that tells us how far back you can go, but it would be impractical to go back more than a few days. But before I get too far into this, let's review what we know. 1. Hermione uses the TT one hour at a time throughout her 3rd year in order to take two classes at once. 2. She appears to usually go to class with the boys first, since Harry usually sees her in class, and then notices that she mysteriously disappears as they are leaving class. 3. She gets more and more tired as the year progresses, which is the main reason I conclude that you do age while you are Time-Turned. Hermione is actually experiencing 25- or 26-hour days, and perhaps even longer days if she is also using the TT to gain needed extra study time out of class. [Maybe she should have done some nocturnal Time-Turning as well to get some extra sleep!] If you take a bird's-eye view of somebody using the TT, you would see one Hermione on her way to class with the boys. Then another Hermione would appear on the way to her other class, and you would see both in their respective classes. After class, the original Hermione (with the boys) would vanish, and the second Hermione would continue on her way and meet up with the boys at lunch or in the common room. But from Hermione's perspective, she would actually experience the same time period twice. From this, I conclude that she is actually a couple of weeks older now than she should be. Now, your question was what would happen if you used the TT to go back several years instead of just a few hours. We have no canon either way, so for the sake of argument let's say that you can somehow change the TT's unit of time to a year (i.e. one turn takes you back one year, ten turns takes you back ten years). Again, you would experience the same time period twice. Therefore, if you are 10 years old, and use the TT to go back 10 years, then there would be two of you (a baby and a 10-year-old). These two you's would age normally for the next 10 years. At then end of that time, the younger you (now 10 years old) would vanish, and the 20-year-old you would continue. Additionally, you would have to stay away from your other self for the whole 10 years. All in all, not very practical. Even if you did this when you were older, so that the age difference was not so apparent (say, starting at age 40 so that when you got back where you started you would be 50), there are many complications to consider. Now, this brings up an interesting question to my Trekkie side. Couldn't you use the TT to *escape* into the past? For example, what if you were about to be Kissed for your various crimes as a Death Eater? You could use a TT to go back so far in the past that you would die of old age before you were born. There would be no possibility of meeting your other self because you haven't been born yet, and you could live out your life, possibly even wreaking havoc in another era. Of course, this brings up all sorts of temporal causality problems. If you change anything in the past, which you would necessarily do, you alter your own future. There is nothing in canon to indicate whether the effects of the TT can be canceled, i.e. if you go back in time and then decide to abort before the repeated time period has elapsed. There is also nothing to indicate whether there is a future version of the TT, or whether turning it in the opposite direction will take you into the future instead of the past. These are all possibilities that could be explored in later books. I would conclude that the TT has limited applicability in the WW, due to the various constraints (aging, meeting yourself in another time line, changing the past and affecting the future, etc.). I also suspect that McGonagall expected Hermione to get so tired she would just drop her extra classes before the year was up, never dreaming just how driven she is (although I have absolutely no canon to support this suspicion). I also *never* expected time travel to come up in this series, even being a sci-fi fan, and was ever so delighted with JKR's treatment of a subject that has vexed sci-fi writers for decades. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From melclaros at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 18:36:49 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:36:49 -0000 Subject: Snape, Sirius and The Prank... In-Reply-To: <20021210164151.23422.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, w charles wrote: > Does anyone know for sure that Snape was in Slytherin House? > > We have Sirius' story in GOF that "he was part of a group of Slytherins...." I find it very difficult to believe that Snape could have been thought of like Neville in *any* way. Even Snape haters have to admit the man is no Neville Longbottom! In that same chapter, Black also says Snape was "famous" at school for knowing more curses in his fist year than most 7th year students. Is Neville famous for knowing ANYTHING? I've actually been thinking of that particular description while reading the "Why Snape Appeals" thread. A lot of people seem to think that Severus as a boy was a loner and an outsider. I've never seen him that way. Kids who are "famous" for some sort of skill usually have a following. Ok, maybe his wasn't a following of squeaky clean preppy types, but I'll bet he had a posse. I don't, however see him as an overt bully with it. I see him more as a puppeteer sending one of his willing acolytes in to do his dirty work (with the notable exception of snooping) and only when he deemed it necessary. (Observe his whispering of the serpentsortia curse for Malfoy in CoS.) Wouldn't that just hack off someone like Sirius Black to no end? Heh heh Melpomene--lining up for her assignment at the acolytes' table! From kaityf at jorsm.com Tue Dec 10 18:30:20 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:30:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021210121346.01288c70@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48070 sixhoursahead wrote: >Ok, I searched for this and did not see anything, so fogive me if it >has already been done. But I have this awful horrible feelings that >Ron Weasley and perhaps the twins are going to be tempted to the Dark >Side or betrayal for money. I've had that feeling about Ron since I first read GoF. His attitude toward his poverty and toward Harry in that book have really bothered me. I don't get the same feeling from the twins since they seem to handle things just fine. Of course, they aren't best friends with the "famous Harry Potter" and that's got to take some of the pressure off. The other Weasley I became concerned over is Percy since his ambition is pointed out quite a bit by Ron. However, I don't see either of them intentionally going over to the dark side. I can see them as dupes, though. I can see them unwittingly playing right into the hands of LV because of these qualities of theirs. Ron's occasional jealousy of Harry and his frustration with his lack of money (and being teased about it by Draco) and Percy's great ambition are just the things that could be used against them. It's this very thing that has made me think at times that Ron is going to end up dying, a high price to pay for his inability to come to terms with his situation. But I like to think it would be a noble end with him realizing what he's done and sacrificing himself for the greater good as he did in the chess game in SS/PS. >I know I know, Ron would never do that. >But JK definitely upped the significance of the Weasley's poverty GoF >just when she has set the stage for "now is the time to see who will >choose what". I agree. It's one of the things that has made me think Ron is going to make a big mistake for which he will pay the ultimate price. >And also ron talks about how he believes the twins >would do almost anything for money (though this may be alleviated by >Harry's gift). But that's Ron's interpretation of the twins. I don't see the twins deliberately choosing evil in order to make money. Now a joke shop I can see them with. I can see them creating some pretty outlandish joke items, much as they have been doing with canary custard cremes. I can't even really imagine the twins being duped into doing something really awful. I think they know where the line is that they can't cross. >But the amount of comments by Ron along the line >of "Why is everything I own rubbish", are greatly increased. Along >with his bitterness at Harry's relative wealth (something we had not >seen in any of the other books). I think that without a doubt >something is being set up here. Again I agree. And it's Ron's bitterness that makes him the most likely candidate in my view for becoming an unwitting pawn of LV. Percy may be ambitious and the twins may bend the rules, but none of them have the bitterness that Ron seems to be developing. >I mean we cannot just think that the >Trio are going to go through these dark years ahead of them with >absoulutely no threat to their loyalty and frienship with each >other. And Ron's attitude towards money in GoF, makes me nervous! That was my first impression reading GoF the first time and it remains my impression as I'm rereading it now for the umpteenth time. I like Ron very much, but I'm sure something's up with him. Carol From kaityf at jorsm.com Tue Dec 10 18:35:55 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:35:55 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021210123048.030a47e8@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48071 Sixhoursahead wrote: >We all know that Snape >never mentiones Lily. But I think we have to look at what he DOES >NOT say about her. Both Draco and Lucius Malfoy make comments to >Harry, that he will meet the same end as his parents. And they make >these comments in response to Harry's behavior. When Snape responds >to the same type of behavior in the same fashion he says that Harry >will end up like his father. I think one reason that Lucius mentions both the Potters may have something to do with the fact that he and Narcissa were Death Eaters (don't have the reference handy, but at some point, there is a reference to both of them) and James and Lily were on the opposing side, interfering with LV attempt at world domination. The Potters both "meddled" and that's what led to their "sticky" end. Snape, OTOH, has a personal animosity toward James, so it makes perfect sense that Snape would refer only to James. He also doesn't necessarily mean that Harry will die the same way, as Lucius seems to indicate, but that Harry will turn out to be just like his father, a person Snape clearly does not respect or like at all. Carol From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 18:45:35 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:45:35 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and Weatherbys In-Reply-To: <24.316a91a0.2b2784de@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48072 Cheryl (Lynx412) wrote: > So, why does Percy never correct his boss about his name? Why > doesn't Mr. Weasley ever do so? Is it possible that Percy isn't > using his right surname in the ministry? perhaps our oh-so- > ambitious Percy feels his father's name is a hazard in his chosen > career and is using instead his mother's maiden name? Now me: I think the whole "Weatherby" bit is intended to convey that, despite how much Percy adores Crouch and is trying so hard to impress him, Crouch hasn't taken a bit of notice of him. And Percy doesn't correct him because that would mean he'd be showing the group that his boss is incorrect in front of his boss, which isn't very PC. Since Arthur works for the Ministry, he probably doesn't want to publicly point out Crouch's mistake, either. Percy does turn "pink around the ears," signifying that he's embarrassed, and "busies himself with the kettle," hoping it will all blow over. I don't think he's using a different name at the Ministry, since Fred and George's dragon dung safely made it to his in-box. And I think "Weatherby" was Crouch's attempt at Percy's first name, not his last name, since Percy was with his father and presumably Crouch knows Arthur's last name. ~Phyllis From wind3213 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 19:11:09 2002 From: wind3213 at hotmail.com (Shauna ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:11:09 -0000 Subject: Digest Number 2329 Thoughts on Hagrid's wand In-Reply-To: <5b.328dcc93.2b2785f6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48073 > Another point, I felt the headmaster/mistress of schools from the other > countries seemed to be under the jurisidiction/control of Crouch, Fudge, > Bagman, et al during the TWT, and remember Karkoroff being questioned during > the reign of VM - surely if the MOM was just for Britain he would have been > questioned in his own country under their MOM. In the Muggle world, when you set foot in another country, you come under partial control of the government there. Extradition is a complicated process, and I don't see why it would be any less so in the magic world. And this is in peacetime. Surely Crouch, authorizer of unforgivables, would not have thought twice about capturing, torturing, and imprisoning foreign citizens, if they were Voldemort supporters. Letting Crouch, Fudge and Bagman control the TWT might have been a traditional courtesy given to the host country by the guest countries. ~ Shauna From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 10 19:23:35 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:23:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021210121346.01288c70@mailhost.jorsm.com> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021210121346.01288c70@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <18450995460.20021210112335@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48074 Hi, Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:30:20 AM, Carol wrote: > But that's Ron's interpretation of the twins. I don't see the twins > deliberately choosing evil in order to make money. I have to say, imo the same goes for Ron. Any character in HP could fall for a trick or have the Imperius curse used on them (since Harry seems to be the only one of the kids who can resist this curse, so far), but I truly can't see Ron join Voldemort deliberately just to get some gold. It seems to me that he doesn't like being poor, but doesn't want to accept hand outs either. Too much pride. He might go for a scheme, thinking he is doing something good and making money in the process, but becoming a death eater for money or to get back at Harry? I just can't see it, and JKR would have to really come up with a believable twist to keep me from getting thrown out of the story. I think Percy might be tempted for power in the ministry, but ultimately I don't see him fall for it, either. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 19:20:06 2002 From: Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com (Darla ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:20:06 -0000 Subject: Why don't they just Apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naama2486 " wrote: > > > > > It's difficult to say about "Apparition-blocking spells". We know > Hogwarts has such protection, but then again, Hogwarts is so old that > the spell is probably some ancient magic now lost ... > > ****************** ME: I would imagine such a spell would have to exist in several places... Azkaban, Grittogs Bank (I mean, what's the point of extensive tunnels to ensure a theif can't find his/her way out if they can merely Apparate?), and obviously Hogwarts... I don't believe the magic is lost... it would create too many loop-holes in the books. Darla. From Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 19:25:28 2002 From: Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com (Darla ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:25:28 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <18450995460.20021210112335@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48076 There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? Yes, I realise it is obviously necessary for the story, *grin*, but... wouldn't you think they'd want to save it? Put it aside for school books etc? Or is it just me thinking it's odd? Darla. From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 19:59:55 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:59:55 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48077 wrote: > Janet:"So, is there no religion in the WW? Just to echo the point already raised. I should have thought that Hogwarts was probably simply nominally C of E or C of Scotland but tolerant and making allowances for other religious beliefs. This would be the same as the majority of other educational establishments in the UK. A proportion of pupils would be Muggle born and Muggles and Wizards we assume have been intermarrying for generations therefore it is possible that they have the same religious beliefs as the community around them whatever that might be. I rather feel that living in Ottery St Catchpole the Weasleys might just be non churchgoing C of E like most of the rest of rural UK. I can imagine them having their weddings and funerals in the village church and having to perform a memory charm on the Vicar afterwards! I can only imagine that it isn't mentioned in canon because JKR herself is only averagely religious and therefore it just hasn't come up yet. Diane From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 10 20:08:24 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:08:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11053685641.20021210120824@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48078 Hi, Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 11:25:28 AM, Darla wrote: > If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several > occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why > did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? Maybe they are not good money managers, as someone mentioned when this was discussed before. I've met quite a few people who blow all their money on things that are not really necessary, but fun, and then they wonder where it's all gone. But the way JKR plays up the Weasley money problems makes me wonder if there's something else behind it. There are several theories out there, including Arthur being blackmailed. I guess we have to wait and see (and I hope the wait isn't too much longer. It would be nice to have more canon to discuss and see which theories fall flat or become more likely!) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From debmclain at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 19:57:03 2002 From: debmclain at yahoo.com (Debbie McLain ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:57:03 -0000 Subject: Wizards and their eye-wear Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48079 naama2486 wrote: > I've been wondering about something- whenever a student at Hogwarts > gets sick, hurt, beaten, cursed at, whatever they get to Madam > Pomfrey, and get cured farely quickly. And she's only a nurse. Me: I have wondered about this too. Aren't there any wizard doctors? Or are the "nurses" good enough that "doctors" aren't necessary? > So, if magical medicine is so advanced, how come so many wizards > still have glasses?! Are they so attached to their spectacles that > they won't magically rid themselves of them? > P.S.Can you imagine Wizards with contact lens? Me: I think just like some wizard's don't like to apparate because of the difficulty, the same goes with making your eyes 20/20. Perhaps the spell is too tough, like becoming an animagus; or a hard potion, like the polyjuice - it's just too easy to screw it up - and who wants to be a blind wizard? Easier just to repair your glasses. Personally I'd rather go to Madame Pomfrey than a muggle doctor. -Debbie From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Dec 10 20:07:10 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:07:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Is not Heir of Slytherin (Was: Harry's Relation to ... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48080 Promethia: > Eloise said: > I think the conclusion is that he is not *descended* from Slytherin. > Lady Promethia's theory proposes that Voldmort is a relative by > marriage, not blood (a step great uncle?) of Lily's, which I guess > could be true. > > Promethia Says: > This is not what my theory is about at all... what I am saying is > that Voldamort is Lily's uncle, through blood, more than likly her > mother's family, and her mother being Voldamort's younger *half*- > sibbling. They would have thier father in comon, and two diffrent > mothers. The end point being that there is a common relative, it's > just not Voldamort's mother, whom, if I rember correctly is the one > who was decendant from Slythering, Not Tom Riddle Sr. > > Sorry to the Mods that this is all in caps: > *THIS IS NOT ANOTHER HARRY IS HEIR OF SLYTHERIN THEORY!* > > I'm sorry if I caused offence. It is true that I got lost in the family tree you proposed; I understood the overall concept better than the detail. The reference to "Uncle Voldamort" (sic) confused me. But please note that my opening comment about Harry *not* being descended form Slytherin was an *agreement* with your statement that Harry is not Slytherin's heir. It was a reply to someone else who, IIRC was challenging your theory on the grounds that canon said he wasn't a relative of Voldemort, which is not accurate. In other words, I was defending your theory, even though I don't subscribe to it personally. IMHO, your reply would have been better directed towards the post to which I was replying. So whilst I am very happy to acknowledge that I got the details wrong, I find the capitals, emphasising something that I neither suggested nor implied that you suggested, a little unnecessary. Eloise Nursing her toes. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wcoreyjr at wi.rr.com Tue Dec 10 19:56:08 2002 From: wcoreyjr at wi.rr.com (Bill Corey Jr.) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:56:08 -0600 Subject: Treatment of house-elves (was: SHIP: Couples in the Potterverse (correction on Minerva's meaning)) References: <1039508208.1095.87497.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000c01c2a086$2f41abd0$39e4a018@gateway> No: HPFGUIDX 48081 Linda McCabe wrote: >There's also the difference in politics between Ron and Hermione. She is >very interested in the social welfare of house-elves. He decidedly is not. >He doesn't care one bit, but humors her and buys a badge basically to shut >her up. William Lloyd Garrison once gave an extemporaneous speech regarding >women's suffrage and compared its horrible reception by society with those >who were opposed to the abolition of slavery. He called it "intelligent >wickedness." That there are those who reject the light and knowingly commit >evil. If they were simply ignorant than when they were shown the light they >would recognize their error of their ways and work to repent and change. >Those that reject the light will foam and fulminate in response and use >brickbats. I'm not saying that Ron is eeeevil when it comes to house-elves, >but he didn't react the way that is someone who is shown the light and >recognizes that they were wrong. Instead he is very defensive and offensive >on this matter. I still think that is very important and telling as to how >R/H could work or not work as a couple later on. Me: I know this topic has been brought up in other threads, but it seems to me that it deserves a bit of extra attention with regards to the R/H ship... There's one thing that strikes me as terribly relevant to the R/H ship that I think was missed above. Ron, being a member of a long line of wizards, would probably take the common WW view of treatment of house-elves as normal, whereas Hermione, born from Muggle parentage and therefore probably more closely-aligned with average Muggle mentality, would see only slavery and mistreatment. If Ron was indeed interested in Hermione, mightn't he, as a fairly intelligent young man, rightly assume that Hermione has a slanted view on the house-elf situation and simply acquiesce rather than pick a fight? As horrible as this may sound, I am oftentimes forced to act similarly when my girlfriend takes a strong position in any discussion, even if I know as fact that she's wrong. (I'm sure at least a couple of you out there understand where I'm coming from...) At first, IIRC, Ron attempts to explain to Hermione (in his usual, rather blunt way) that she's missed the point on house-elves (by the way, please forgive the lack of quotes and references... my girlfriend has absconded with my books... she's hooked), but when she sticks to her ethical guns and becomes angry, he shuts up and buys the button to end the disagreement. Sounds like a typical male reaction to an angry woman he cares about (i.e. wife, girlfriend). Remember, it was a man (Shakespeare) who wrote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." He knew what he was talking about! nightfall_42, newbie to the list, HP enthusiast, and adamant cave-in specialist with regards to girlfriends and the like. ;-) From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Dec 10 20:27:20 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:27:20 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48082 Darla wrote: > There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of > money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several > occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), >why > did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? I didn't see it as blowing the money on a just-for-fun vacation. If I remember correctly (sorry, no books at my disposal), they traveled in order to see Bill, whom they hadn't see in two or three years. Why waste the money on luxury items that the family has done perfectly well without if they can see their oldest son, and get a vacation in the process? -Corinth From probono at rapidnet.com Tue Dec 10 20:08:51 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (Tanya) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:08:51 -0700 Subject: Snape and Parseltongue (wasRe: Wands with no spells) In-Reply-To: <1039500780.25993.68573.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48083 Roo said: I don't have my book with me, but after Harry leaves the Duelling Club, and Hermione and Ron are explaining the concept, Harry says something like, "I suppose heaps of people here can do it", to which one of them replies, "No, it's a very rare gift". So it isn't surprising that Malfoy is *not* a Parselmouth, and neither does it say that Slytherin looked for Parseltongue in prospective students- he probably didn't, seeing as it s a very rare gift. As for Snape's reaction, I think this was a reaction similar to the rest of those present, except that Snape isn't exactly the hysterical type. Now, there are probably those who believe that Snape was instructed by Dumbledore to do something like this, in order to reveal Harry's talent, but I won't go into that. Me: Though it wasn't mentioned in that section of the book, Dumbledore later tells Harry that he has qualities that Salazar admired in his students including his own special gift of Parseltongue. I assume that means he favored his own relations as I don't believe anyone else had the gift. As far as Snape goes, I don't think he suspected Harry of being a Parselmouth and didn't seem all to pleased at this discovery either. I do believe that Snape mentors Draco on-the-side similar to the way Lupin mentored Harry and that Draco was already proficient with this spell. At this point, Snape just had to tell Draco what to do not how to do it. -Tanya ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 20:18:35 2002 From: Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com (Darla ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:18:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48084 Janet:"So, is there no religion in the WW? > > Just to echo the point already raised. I should have thought that > Hogwarts was probably simply nominally C of E or C of Scotland but > tolerant and making allowances for other religious beliefs. This > would be the same as the majority of other educational establishments > in the UK. ************************ ME: Hey all, Please don't flame me for this, but I think it's actually a good thing that JK doesn't emphasis or explore religion too greatly- and the same can be said concerning a lot of other issues to. It's wonderful that the group has so many in-depth discussions and debates, but wouldn't the magic be taken away if J.K Rowling were to lay every piece of info on every issue in front of us? It wouldn't be HP's world anymore... it would be *this* world, almost, but with a slant. We'd get bogged down with practicalities and loose the magic. The wonderful thing about the books, I believe, is J.K's originality. Yes, it has a basis on our world- it has to for any believablity- but it's so much more then that; it's a world in it's own right. And to start attributing parts of our world/beliefs to it when J.K has made no indication to support these beliefs... It just doesn't fit. I'm happy (call me ignorant if you will) not to consider religion as an issue in the books, although I myself am a Christian (although a lapse one, I must admit, *grin*). People's opinions differ too greatly, as they always will, and for someone to say 'this is probably the general religion' is really pointless when someone with a different 'constant' in their life will disagree. There is little to no cannon supporting it, and it's quite a grey area... Darla. From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 20:23:37 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:23:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210202337.45249.qmail@web40514.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48085 "Darla " wrote: There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? Yes, I realise it is obviously necessary for the story, *grin*, but... wouldn't you think they'd want to save it? Put it aside for school books etc? Or is it just me thinking it's odd? Me: I think that the Weasleys are not as hard up as Ron says they are. All Ron complains of is having hand-me-down things and his lack of pocket money (although he obviously has some, since he is able to buy souvenirs at QWC). Regarding hand-me-down clothes, rats, etc: I have a younger sister, and she *always* wore my clothes after they became too small for me, got my toys, trinkets I didn't like when we were little - and we were not poor. It is just common sense. Ron, having 3 older brothers the family still has to support (assuming Bill and Charlie are on their own), of course has their old things. I am not saying the Weasleys are rich, I understand that they live on a very tight budget, but they obviously manage to pay for the kids' school supplies and can afford to get Percy a new owl as a present, etc. The fact that they spent the prize money on a trip also says a lot - they manage. Mrs Weasley is a very practical woman who is responsible for the family budget, and she does everything to make the ends meet. She probably doesn't see why they should buy new schoolbooks when they can get used ones and use the leftover money for something else practical, like wool for the Christmas sweaters. The only times they get *unpractical* stuff is when something very pleasing happens, like Percy becoming Head Boy. OTOH, although she economizes, she really ought to reconsider her attitude to Ron - maybe get him an occasional new thing, I don't know. Knitting not-marroon sweaters would also be nice. So Ron's not complaining about their poverty . All he says is "Why is everything I own rubbish," "I hate being poor" - he says that about himself. I can understand him - he never gets new things, Percy does, etc. OK, I realize I am kind of rambling, so I'll reiterate my point - the Weasleys aren't all that poor, but they economize on Ron more than on other boys because he's the youngest, and it's this that bothers Ron. Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Tue Dec 10 20:36:52 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:36:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money References: Message-ID: <00c401c2a08b$e0222e70$d64053d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 48086 Darla writes: There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? Yes, I realise it is obviously necessary for the story, *grin*, but... wouldn't you think they'd want to save it? Put it aside for school books etc? Or is it just me thinking it's odd? Me: This question has come up several times. Not just here - but in real life as well. I've come to learn that no matter how much money you make, its always barely enough to cover your expenses. (For some, no matter how much you make, it still isn't enough). If you have extra, most of us would find a way to spend it. I have a friend who went bankrupt, has creditors calling her (and she keeps changing her phone number to avoid them). When her mother's best friend died, she inherited $10,000. So what was her first thoughts? Buying those things that she wouldn't have been able to afford instead of using that money to get out of debt. I asked her why she would even entertain such thoughts and her rationale was that this money was unexpected, unbudgeted - a bonus; free money. Therefore she wanted to treat it as such and lift herself from the gloom that surrounded her since she would not be able to do it otherwise. "Everyone else gets to have a vacation and buy something nice. Why can't I?" It could be a thought that had entertained Molly & Arthur too. And, they did put some of the gold aside. Ron got a new wand and the kids did get their books. The need for the dress robes wasn't until the following school year. i can understand why Molly wouldn't have wanted to spend that extra money on dress robes. I'm sure Ron was growing fast, the robes would have been expensive, he would have worn it probably only once that year and Ginny wouldn't be wearing it the following year since she's a girl. There would have been no one to hand the robes down to. Its also possible that Bill & Charlie's old dress robes wouldn't have fit Ron either or they kept them - or never had any. Grace From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 21:13:44 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:13:44 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48087 >> ME: > Hey all, > Please don't flame me for this, but I think it's actually a good > thing that JK doesn't emphasis or explore religion too greatly- and > the same can be said concerning a lot of other issues to. It's > wonderful that the group has so many in-depth discussions and > debates, but wouldn't the magic be taken away if J.K Rowling were to > lay every piece of info on every issue in front of us? It wouldn't be > HP's world anymore... it would be *this* world, almost, but with a > slant. We'd get bogged down with practicalities and loose the magic. > The wonderful thing about the books, I believe, is J.K's > originality. Yes, it has a basis on our world- it has to for any > believablity- but it's so much more then that; it's a world in it's > own right. And to start attributing parts of our world/beliefs to it > when J.K has made no indication to support these beliefs... It just > doesn't fit. > I'm happy (call me ignorant if you will) not to consider religion > as an issue in the books, although I myself am a Christian (although > a lapse one, I must admit, *grin*). People's opinions differ too > greatly, as they always will, and for someone to say 'this is > probably the general religion' is really pointless when someone with > a different 'constant' in their life will disagree. There is little > to no cannon supporting it, and it's quite a grey area... > Darla. Just to reiterate Darla: Diane said: I can only imagine that it (religion) isn't mentioned in canon because JKR herself is only averagely religious and therefore it just hasn't come up yet. This goes for much of the UK where religious is tacit rather than fanatical. I am inclined to agree with your point about being a lapsed Christian (also grins) Christianity has appeared in canon in the form of Christmas so all we can assume really is that Hogwarts is nominally Christian much like the rest of the UK. Diane From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 19:59:34 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:59:34 -0000 Subject: "They were meddlesome fools too" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48088 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "evenflow200214 " wrote: > What does Lucius mean by "meddlesome fools"? Could this comment to > Harry have something to do with what James and Lily did? Notice, he > uses "they" implying both of them... What did they interfere in? And > how are they similar to Harry? > > Definitely. We know that Lily and James were actively helping Dumbledore combat Voldemort. So this is what Lucius is referring to. But I do believe that Lily and James had a more significant and speficic "occupation"if you will. JKR has definitely said that this will be an important revelation in future books. How is Harry similar? Well it is obvious that already Harry is taking a active role against Voldemort, and in this instance against L. Malfoy (the whole Dobby incident). Sixhoursahead From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 20:13:08 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:13:08 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Mrs. Figg Mend Her Broken Bone? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48089 Has Arabella been forced to live COMPLETELY as a muggle for the last 14 years? The fact that she didn't mend her broken leg in the privacy of her own home surprises me. I mean, no one saw her break it, except the cat she tripped over, so why not use magic? I think it would be interesting that even more than Arabella being there to keep an eye on Harry, she had to actually completely renounce using any and all magic. Maybe this was the only way for her to "keep off radar", and avoid being attacked by Voldemort or the DEs. Sixhoursahead From behold_smiodan at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 10 20:13:35 2002 From: behold_smiodan at yahoo.ca (behold_smiodan ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:13:35 -0000 Subject: How do they know? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48090 Just a thought, and I'm sorry if it already been discussed, but how do they know how many student there will be? I mean, from cannon we *know* (well we think we do....) that only 10 kids per house get admitted so, how do they know that exactly 40 students will be coming to Hogwarts and that exactly 10 of them will be in each house, 5 boys, 5 girls? What happens if 9 boys end up in Slytherin or 15 kids manage to make the Hufflepuffs any other house? "behold smiodan" From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 20:27:49 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:27:49 -0000 Subject: What is the purpose of the WW? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48091 At first, this seems like a stupid question, why does the WW exist? The simple answer is that it exists to shelter wizards from persecution and teach them how to use their magic. However, there are hints of a darker reality behind the facade. Dumbledore uses an old magic, the exact nature of which is not disclosed, to keep Harry safe. I must question his skill with it, as Dobby, Fred and George and Mr. Weasliy are all able to enter at one time or another. Where does that spell come from and why is it based on blood ties? This is my private theory, which probably come from reading to many fantasy novels while waiting for OOP. Some time back the Human race was visited by a group of extremely powerful beings, we might call them gods, who tormented the human race. The Old stories of the fairies were not Tinkerbells, but powerful and ruthless creatures who would steal children and leave behind a changeling or worse for the parents to look after. The humans' may have been left by those creatures after some time and realising that they could be summoned my magic, tried to destroy it or to control it. I know this seems like a stretch, but why must the MOM and DD place such empresses on teaching magic to children? Could it be that the developed magic used by the WW is safe and won't summon the creatures? Now, the house elves appear to be more powerful than wizards, so why have they been enslaved and treated terribly? What is their real origin? Could they have come from Farire? Also, the MOM attempts to keep creatures that use magic hidden from the muggles. Dragons can't fly in the real world, so they must use magic to keep themselves going. Could it be extremely important to keep muggles believing that magic is not real? Now, perhaps the real danger offered by Voldemort and Co. is the possibility of a Magical Blitz which might summon one of the 'gods'? Could that be why people are so scared to say his name, like the old folk were scared to speak ill of the fairies? Does this make sense or have I finally lost it? Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 20:45:53 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (sixhoursahead ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:45:53 -0000 Subject: Wizard Appearances Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48092 People were mentioning about why wizards do not correct their vision. We all know that the magic in HP has definite boundaries, some we have seen, some we have not, and some are hinted at. Like, why can Bill Weasley conjure tableclothes, but Mrs. Weasley can't conjure new school robes? Obviously there is a definite limit here, and with good reason, the wizard society is just as apitalist as muggle society. In the same vein, I am tempted to believe that wizards cannot permanently alter their physical appearances. If they could, then you would think a large majority of them would look like supermodels. So obviously they can use Polyjuice Potion for a short time. Or even shrink their teeth, or sleek their hair for a night, or use some of Madame Pomfrey's medicine to get rid of acne (though when Eloise Midgen tries to simply magick her acne off, there are disastrous consequences). But I believe that it is impossible for wizards to fundamentally change their appearances just because they want to. An important exception is Voldemort, who is drastically physically changed, and looks nothing like Tom Riddle, but obviously these transformations came about through the most powerful of Dark Magic. Sixhoursahead From Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 20:45:57 2002 From: Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com (Darla ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:45:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily- I just can't see it In-Reply-To: <20021210155023.36006.qmail@web13002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48093 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barb wrote: > Again, by process of elimination, we see that since James married Lily, she therefore did not marry Snape (unless they divorced before she married James, which seems unlikely). ********* ME: I agree with the unlikely part, *grin*, there's a lot of cannon that contradicts this idea, such as James and Lily's very hasty marrage after Hogwarts. Not exactly a lot of spare time in between... **************** Any possible relationship between Snape and Lily would more likely have occurred when they were in school, which would mean her relationship with James would come after, which would in turn lead one to conclude that she preferred James over Severus (although, if this DID occur, there is still the possibility that Snape ended the relationship). > ****** ME: I can see where people are coming from with the Lily/Snape idea, sort of, but I can't bring myself to believe it. James and Snape are just too different character wise for it to be plausable for Lily to fall for them *both*. Plus, how many relationships have we seen outside of individual Houses? Would Lily and Snape even be good *friends*? If Snape did harbour any feels towards her, I should imagine it was more of a 'I want what James has' rather then Lily herself. Kinda a parrallel with Harry/ Hermione and Draco, perhaps? ********* Added to that, this boy whom he disliked and seemed to resent SAVED HIS LIFE. Ouch. > ********* ME: IMO this is the clincher for Snape's dislike of James, rather then any issue of Lily, and since we have no indication that she was involved... why harbour a grudge against her? I actually don't think Snape does hold a grudge for her, hence the no nasty comments about her. Also, I'm not sure where I get this impression from, but I think Harry is more sensitive about his mother and comments made about her then his father... After all, it's kinda understandable. He remembers her scream as she *died* for him. And call it crazy but I believe Snape realises this... and perhaps holds himself back from bad mouthing her because of it. He is not really such a bad guy... Yes, he allows his grudge against James to overcome him often, but... I do believe he has a code of morals, and iron self control, and enough sensitivity not to push Harry beyound taunting and into the grounds of real, damaging cruelty. Darla. *********** From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Tue Dec 10 21:48:08 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (Beth Loubet) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:48:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crushes on HP characters References: <1039541119.5432.89687.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <006201c2a095$d70f7180$7001a8c0@bloubetdellpc> No: HPFGUIDX 48094 Maria: > Did anyone else have a huge crush on Prof Lupin? Hmm... I think I answered this on the wrong list. Lessee if I can find that post and bring it over here... Ah, here it is... [from OTChatter] Melody writes (re: the Crouches): >I have, and most definitely always will, find his son to be *way* more >sexier and smarter than Daddy Senior ever will be. Yes, and more >evil, I will admit Eileen, but come on. Junior was ever more sly, >dignified, loyal, and driven than his father ever was. He was an >elegant man even if deep down he was a bit...misguided. And that to >me is sexy. Yes, in a *very* twisted sense, but this is a measure of >sexiness not husband qualities. Ack, ptui. Sorry, but neither of the Crouches have EVER done it for me. At my age (over 40), Lupin has the most attraction for me of the single male characters. He's patient, kind, and monstrous. What more could a woman want? [excised casting notes for PoA] I do have to admit to a definite attraction to James Potter, though. Admittedly, we see him mostly through Harry's rose-tinted glasses, but I might have been willing to give Lily a fight at school. He's good-looking, brave, loyal, a loving husband and father, with a devilish sense of humor and a bad-boy disregard for rules. Yep, James has to top my list of attractive characters. At my age. If I were twelve, it would be Harry all the way. bel From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 22:03:46 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:03:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why didn't Mrs. Figg Mend Her Broken Bone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210220346.38689.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48095 --- "sixhoursahead wrote: > Has Arabella been forced to live COMPLETELY as a muggle for the last > 14 years? The fact that she didn't mend her broken leg in the > privacy of her own home surprises me. I mean, no one saw her break > it, except the cat she tripped over, so why not use magic? I think > it would be interesting that even more than Arabella being there to > keep an eye on Harry, she had to actually completely renounce using > any and all magic. Maybe this was the only way for her to "keep off > radar", and avoid being attacked by Voldemort or the DEs. Well, for one thing, that's assuming that Arabella Figg and Mrs.Figg are the same, which is not a given. I believe all JKR admitted to in the interview was that there was a *connection* -- Arabella could be a Muggle-born witch and Mrs.Figg was her mother or grandmother. But even assuming that Mrs.Figg IS a witch, there are many valid reasons for her to still have the "broken leg". For one thing, we don't know that no one saw her break her leg. All we were told was, "Mrs. Figg broke her leg tripping over one of her cats." It could have happened on her front porch with half a dozen witnesses, so she couldn't avoid going to the hospital. She might have magically repaired the leg later, but had to leave the cast on to avoid suspicion from her neighbors. Also, I'm not 100% convince she actually broke her leg. She could've had some other magically-related injury and a cast on the leg was the easiest way to disguise it. We just don't know enough about what happened to make too many assumptions. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 22:11:37 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:11:37 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Mrs. Figg Mend Her Broken Bone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sixhoursahead " wrote: > Has Arabella been forced to live COMPLETELY as a muggle for the last > 14 years? The fact that she didn't mend her broken leg in the > privacy of her own home surprises me. I mean, no one saw her break > it, except the cat she tripped over, so why not use magic? I think > it would be interesting that even more than Arabella being there to > keep an eye on Harry, she had to actually completely renounce using > any and all magic. Maybe this was the only way for her to "keep off > radar", and avoid being attacked by Voldemort or the DEs. > > Sixhoursahead I wonder if magical medicine, in the same way as Muggle medicine, is in fact a licensed or at least a specialist skill. After all in Chamber of Secrets we saw Gilderoy Lockhart making a total mess of it with Harry's arm so maybe it has to be got absolutely right. Perhaps arabella was not confident of making a perfect job of it so she held back. Diane From elena_evenstar at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 21:39:59 2002 From: elena_evenstar at yahoo.com (Anne Palmer) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:39:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <00c401c2a08b$e0222e70$d64053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: <20021210213959.87824.qmail@web14509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48097 Anne Writes: I think that the main reason they wanted to spend the money is because of the lack of any sort of luxury in their lives whatsoever. The Weasleys obviously missed Bill, and thought it would be a good way for the family to make use of the money. And rememberm they did have *some* money left over to buy Ron's new wand, and perhaps some other neccessities. Grace Saalsaa wrote: Darla writes: There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? Yes, I realise it is obviously necessary for the story, *grin*, but... wouldn't you think they'd want to save it? Put it aside for school books etc? Or is it just me thinking it's odd? Me: This question has come up several times. Not just here - but in real life as well. I've come to learn that no matter how much money you make, its always barely enough to cover your expenses. (For some, no matter how much you make, it still isn't enough). If you have extra, most of us would find a way to spend it. I have a friend who went bankrupt, has creditors calling her (and she keeps changing her phone number to avoid them). When her mother's best friend died, she inherited $10,000. So what was her first thoughts? Buying those things that she wouldn't have been able to afford instead of using that money to get out of debt. I asked her why she would even entertain such thoughts and her rationale was that this money was unexpected, unbudgeted - a bonus; free money. Therefore she wanted to treat it as such and lift herself from the gloom that surrounded her since she would not be able to do it otherwise. "Everyone else gets to have a vacation and buy something nice. Why can't I?" It could be a thought that had entertained Molly & Arthur too. And, they did put some of the gold aside. Ron got a new wand and the kids did get their books. The need for the dress robes wasn't until the following school year. i can understand why Molly wouldn't have wanted to spend that extra money on dress robes. I'm sure Ron was growing fast, the robes would have been expensive, he would have worn it probably only once that year and Ginny wouldn't be wearing it the following year since she's a girl. There would have been no one to hand the robes down to. Its also possible that Bill & Charlie's old dress robes wouldn't have fit Ron either or they kept them - or never had any. Grace ________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! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 22:20:20 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:20:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] How do they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210222020.36681.qmail@web40510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48098 "behold_smiodan " wrote: Just a thought, and I'm sorry if it already been discussed, but how do they know how many student there will be? I mean, from cannon we *know* (well we think we do....) that only 10 kids per house get admitted so, how do they know that exactly 40 students will be coming to Hogwarts and that exactly 10 of them will be in each house, 5 boys, 5 girls? What happens if 9 boys end up in Slytherin or 15 kids manage to make the Hufflepuffs any other house? Me: I suppose you're talking about the beds already being there when Harry and the other boys come up to their dorm after their very first evening at Hogwarts? That's because of... House-elves! While the kids are at the feast (the Sorting is finished), the house-elves quickly put the beds in the rooms and sort the luggage. I suppose there might be some Hogwarts human staff for this job, even though they aren't mentioned. Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 22:25:21 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:25:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Snape didn't go to the infirmary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210222521.72117.qmail@web40514.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48099 I wrote: > > This was mentioned a while ago: Why didn't Snape go to the hospital wing after Fluffy bit him? > > Somebody said (can't find the exact message) that it's because he didn't want Madam Pomfrey to know he'd been to "visit" Fluffy, but that doesn't really make sense to me. Dumbledore obviously trusts Snape, so Snape shouldn't really be worried about what anybody else might think. > Michelle: I've also thought that the reason he didn't want to go to Pomfrey is because he wanted Quirrell to think that he (Snape) was working on his own (maybe for his own goals) and not necessarily with Dumbledore. Me: I don't think so... Could Quirrell/Voldemort buy that? Snape knows that Quirrellmort wants to steal the Stone, and Dumbledore doesn't? Voldemort would not underestimate Dumbledore like that. Besides, Snape was talking to Quirrell about "loyalties" - if he wanted to show that he wanted the Stone for some other goal rather than to prevent Voldemort from rising, he wouldn't have said that. Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 10 22:54:12 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:54:12 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Crouch - "My mother saved me." (5 of 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48100 [Note: In Which I Prove I Have More of a Heart Concerning a Certain Bartemius Crouch Jr. Than Elkins Credits Me With] "Well, that was weird." says Cindy. "Very strange. I could have sworn I had a dream about a window through a waterfall, and a cave, and a forbidden pool. And I had to go to this mountain with you, Eileen and Avery. And Avery wasn't co-operating, and Elkins almost had him killed, but I saved him." "Cindy, we often meet our friends in strange places when we dream," says Elkins. "But unless all dream alike, do not expect us to remember the meeting." "Well, I'm glad I'm out of it," says Cindy with a shudder. "Back on the piers of Theory Bay and it's sunny and warm for once. You'd almost think the hurricane wasn't coming. I'm going to go over and sell Rookwood thongs for a bit." "Why do people buy those Rookwood thongs and avoid C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D like the plague?" asks Eileen, watching the long line which has now formed at Cindy's Rookwood thong booth. "It can't be that they think Crouch is evil. Rookwood's evil. It can't be the H-word. Rookwood defines the H-word. Sometimes it's enough to make me cry." "You told me that you *wanted* me to attack Crouch Sr." Elkins reminds her. "You said that you liked nothing better. You claimed that you found it exciting. You explained that you were suckled on controversy. And you insisted that you really *did* want to hear me out on this subject." "Well, it's true, but I was rather hoping that you wouldn't demolish me that badly. I mean, I knew you'd demolish me. But not to this extent. I've had to rethink my entire vision of Crouch, and I'm not liking what I see." "That would be because Barty Crouch Sr. is despicable." "Probably, Elkins, but I think I always knew that. It's never stopped you from liking someone or finding them tragic. But I did assume he was a hard-liner, and you demolished that quite nicely. Still, I'm sticking to my guns that his motives weren't entirely self-serving, as I said before. Can we call it quits?" "No. But if you like, we can take a short breather from Crouch's iniquities. A little break, perhaps, Eileen? A little pause?" Elkins grins wolfishly. "How about we talk about Mrs. Crouch for a while instead?" Eileen didn't answer. She was going to be defeated, those pitiless eyes were telling her so... she was going to be defeated, and there was nothing she could do about it... but she wasn't going to play along. She noticed something that Elkins was hiding in the shadows and pounced. "You said Crouch was a man of honour," says Eileen firmly. "Yes. I'm recanting that now," says Elkins with a nasty smile. "Why?" "Because he most definitely isn't. I think we went into that already?" "In many aspects, yes, but he gave his word to Karkaroff and Karkaroff walked free, even when Moody was against it, even when he could have tortured those names out of Karkaroff. Maybe not a hard-liner, maybe a manipulator, maybe a hypocrite, but he was a man of honour there, and I can't see how you can recant that judgement." "Let's get back to the topic, if you will," says Elkins. "Mrs. Crouch, whom you detest." "Yes I do! She put unbearable pressure on her husband to do something that was totally wrong. Don't snicker, Elkins. Crouch Sr. made all his other horrible mistakes of his own volition, but she forced him into that one." "Did she?" "Yes, she slammed him with a Last Request. Like a Life Bond. Sacred in the wizarding world, and he couldn't refuse." "That might very well be," says Elkins. "It has precedent. Cedric's Last Request to Harry. But you don't really *believe* that story, do you?" "But it's there, Elkins. In the text! Barty Jr. says so hims... Oh." "Exactly, Eileen. What's the first rule of Potterverse speculation." "Never get involved in a prank-war between Sirius and Snape supporters?" says Eileen chipperly. "No, the other one, only slightly less well known" says Elkins. "Never trust a character when a subjective intrepretation is on the line?" "Very good. > "'My mother saved me. She knew she was dying. She persuaded my > father to rescue me as a last favor to her. He loved her as he had > never loved me. He agreed.'" Elkins slams the book shut. "That," she says. "Is our *only* evidence for this notion that Crouch saved his son's life only because his wife put unbearable psychological pressure on him to convince him to do so. That's it. All of it. How could young Crouch possibly have known anything about the precise nature of his parents' deliberations over whether or not to save him from Azkaban?" "I think I assumed his father had told him," says Eileen timidly. "Do you really? Can you imagine Crouch saying, 'Just so you know, boy, I would have happily left you to rot in Azkaban, if only your sainted mother hadn't forced my hand with that blasted dying request of hers.' I really can't see that. Can you?" "Well. Not exactly that." "And I certainly can't imagine *Winky* telling him such a thing. So unless we're willing to propose an Ever So Evil Winky, one who But unless we want to accept either ESE Winky or a rather stunningly brutal elder Crouch, I think that we're left with extrapolation. Extrapolation, speculation, deduction. None of which is precisely immune from bias." "Yes, we've noticed that," says Eileen, with a pointed look at Elkins' hobby horse, "Why can't *you* accept a stunningly brutal elder Crouch, btw? Why do you feel that would be out of character for that incarnation of all things infamous? It doesn't feel right to me somehow, but you? I'm really very curious." "Are you saying that Crouch Jr. was deluded?" demands Cindy. "I think," she says slowly, "that it has got to be very easy to play Good Parent/Bad Parent when one of your parents isn't even around to piss you off anymore, while the other one is holding you prisoner by means of an Unforgivable Curse. I think," she says, "that it has got to be even easier to play that game when one of your parents died in your place in Azkaban, while the other one first publicly denounced you and then, while you were screaming and struggling and pleading for mercy while being dragged off by the dementors, exhorted you at the top of his lungs to go and rot there. Have you ever wondered how they broke the news to him, by the way?" "Yes." "Oh, of course you would," says Elkins with a grim smile. "You're just as bad with that Palantir. What did you see?" "I didn't think Barty at all knew what was happening to him when he was taken out of Azkaban," begins Eileen slowly. "His description of the scene is so passive, as if he couldn't remember it. No, I think his first real memories would be of lying in bed at the Crouch manor, suddenly released from all the pain and anguish of Azkaban, warm in a real bed with real blankets, and Winky there nursing him back to health. Have you ever thought of what that would be like? Like coming to life again after one had been dead. And then they told him his mother was dead." "You thought that?" asks Cindy. "You feel sorry for Barty Crouch Jr.?" "Yes," says Eileen. "I know exactly where I was too. I had read Goblet of Fire two day before, on the drive down to Seattle. And I was standing on the bridge over Deception Pass, watching the fog come in over the ocean, and I found myself crying over the whole affair. "They're only characters in books!" "Sorrow's springs are still the same," says Eileen elusively. "And I thought how upset he seemed to be over the way his father had treated her body." "Oh you did, did you?" says Elkins. "I also remember climbing down to the ocean, and fiddling with the idea of crushing on Snape, mostly on the grounds of hurt-comfort, I think, but don't tell anyone about that," says Eileen, suddenly going very red. "It was just a moment's idle fancy. I'd forgotten about it till now." Cindy snickers. "Haven't you ever wondered," Elkins asks, "why Crouch Jr. went to all the trouble to turn his father's body into a bone and then bury it in Hagrid's garden, rather than just, say, transfiguring it to dust?" "Yes, it struck me as recreating his mother's burial," says Eileen promptly. "Really, I was in a complete daze that day. I couldn't get my hands on GoF, because my brother was reading it, and my mother kept asking my father and I not to discuss the Crouch family in front of everyone else who hadn't read the book, or to go off by ourselves to discuss the Crouches." "So you see," says Elkins "*Somebody* had to tell young Crouch about his mother's death. Either Winky did it, or his father did." "I've thought for a long time it was his father," says Eileen. "Crouch Sr. was obviously a very controlling person," Elkins rolls her eyes, "And he wanted to be entirely in charge of that dynamic. He would have been the one to tell his son. I'm pretty sure of it." "Whoever it was," says Elkins. "These are the points that would have been emphasized: "Your mother really wanted to do this for you," she says. "She did it willingly. It was her idea. She absolutely insisted upon it. It was the very last thing that she wanted to do on this earth..." Eileen nods."I agree. And I'm sure that Crouch Sr. would emphasized another point, "You can show your gratitude to her by mending your ways ie. obeying me." But I guess Barty Jr. wouldn't have been too much impressed by that point." "Now," says Elkins. "that doesn't quite add up to the story Crouch Jr. implies, but you can see how if I had been Crouch Jr. then I might have come up with just that as my final answer when I sat down to the math. Do you think?" "Don't ask me," says Eileen. "You're the one who identifies with the little psycho." "Have you ever taken a really close look at Crouch Jr's own account of his rescue from Azkaban?" asks Elkins, ignoring her. "It's actually quite interesting. Look." > "'They came to visit me. They gave me a draft of Polyjuice Potion > containing one of my mother's hairs. She took a draft of Polyjuice > Potion containing one of my hairs. We took on each other's > appearance....The dementors are blind. They sensed one healthy, one > dying person entering Azkaban. They sensed one healthy, one dying > person leaving it. My father smuggled me out, disguised as my > mother, in case any prisoners were watching through their doors.... > My mother died a short while afterward in Azkaban. She was careful > to drink Polyjuice Potion until the end. She was buried under my > name and bearing my appearance. Everyone believed her to be me.'" "That's Crouch Jr's own account of how he was rescued from Azkaban," she says. "Do you notice anything unusual about it?" "His father," Eileen whispers. "Where's his poor father? His father is barely even *there.*" "Rationalization," says Elkins. "You know what struck me about this passage when I read it first," says Eileen. "Its relation to Sirius Black's account. Even, reading for the first time, thinking that Barty Crouch Jr. would turn out to be innocent, I was touched by the image of Crouch Sr. "half-carrying" his wife out of Azkaban. There's something about the way Sirius says it. The physicality. It's a powerful image. And Crouch Jr. just strips the scene of all that. He was "smuggled." "Smuggled" vs. "half-carrying." "It's as if he wants to taint his father's involvement as much as possible, to imbue it with criminal associations," says Elkins. "His mother is the one who 'saved' him. His father just 'smuggled' him. "And you like this guy," says Eileen. "You're almost talking me out that sympathy I've been slowly developing for him, did you know that?" "Dumbledore asks him," she says through gritted teeth. "How he came to be there. How he escaped from Azkaban. And the very first thing that he says, his very first sentence in response is: 'My mother saved me.' Don't you find that telling?" "YES!" screams Eileen. "I DID! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM!" "Calm down," says Cindy. "I just couldn't resist it," says Eileen, "my inner eye telling me what's coming up in the next post." Elkins looks at her cooly. "You do see where this is leading to?" she says. "It's a coherent emotional argument: my mother saved me, so 'I didn't owe my father a damned thing.'"By the time that he is speaking under the veritaserum, Crouch Jr. has become a *parricide.* And while we're only guessing that wizards might have a strong belief in last requests, and while we're only guessing that they might have strong feelings about proper burial, there is something that we *know* that they believe in." She waits. "We know that they believe in life debts," says Eileen. "Yes. We know that they believe in life debts. Awkward things, life debts." "Don't children owe their parents a life debt as a matter of simple default?" asks Cindy. "Awkward things," Elkins says again. "Life debts." "I've always wondered," says Eileen. "That Barty Jr. didn't try the Alexander the Great method of dealing with that." "Alexander the Great?" asks Cindy. "He absolutely detested his father, and he convinced himself that he really was the son of a god. It must have been tempting. I mean, the text even draws our attention to the fact that Barty Jr. doesn't look at all like his father. If it weren't for the bulging eye at the end, I'm sure we'd be seeing lots of speculation on the list as to who Barty's real father was. But I suppose that would have involved Barty having to blacken the reputation of his saintly mother, so he went for the next best thing. Adoption by Voldemort. And that's how he got around the life debt. Of course, that father never came to rescue him from the dementors." Eileen's face is hard and unpitying. "So you see," says Elkins. "I don't think that saving his son from Azkaban was only Crouch's wife's error. I think that it was also his own. I think that in the end, Crouch saved his son because he wanted to." "Eileen, are those tears?" asks Cindy. Margaret, are you grieving Over Goldengrove unleaving? Leaves, like the things of man, you With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? Ah! as the heart grows older It will come to such sights colder By & by, nor spare a sigh Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; And yet you will weep & know why. Now no matter, child, the name: Sorrow's springs are the same. Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed What heart heard of, ghost guessed: It is the blight man was born for, It is Margaret you mourn for. --Gerard Manley Hopkins > REFERENCES > > This post is continued from part four. It is mainly a response > to messages 45402 (Crouch Sr as Tragic Hero) and 45693 (Crouch and > Winky), but also cites or references messages 43326, 43447, 44636, > 46923, and 46935. > > "This time, with narrative feeling" -- in some branches of reader > response criticism, 'narrative feeling' is the term used to describe > those emotional reactions to the text which derive from the reader's > engagement with the text's narrative, or story-telling, elements. > The most common example is a reader's sense of personal > identification with a fictional character. > > Link to "The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons:" > http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/brutus.jpg > > For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, > visit Hypothetic Alley at > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Dec 10 23:26:39 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:26:39 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48101 > Diane said: I can only imagine that it (religion) isn't mentioned > in canon because JKR herself is only averagely religious and > therefore it just hasn't come up yet. > > This goes for much of the UK where religious is tacit rather than > fanatical. I am inclined to agree with your point about being a > lapsed Christian (also grins) Christianity has appeared in canon > in the form of Christmas so all we can assume really is that > Hogwarts is nominally Christian much like the rest of the UK. > > Diane I'd argue that Hogwarts and the WW are similar in religious variety to the rest of the UK. A modern specialist school (which Hogwarts effectively is) would be expected to be non-sectarian. Religion is so very much in the background in the WW that it appears to be a deliberate authorial decision. JKR does use various Christian symbols (Harry's wand is made of Holly which has been used as a Christian symbol, the Stag that is James's patronus is also a symbol of St Godric, Sirius is Harry's *Godfather*, Hedwig is the name of a Saint who had particular concern for orphaned children, and so on). This is probably not an accident. JKR is on record as attending Church of Scotland services at the time the books were being planned (Church of Scotland ref: Interview with Evan Solomon, CBC Newsworld Hot Type (21 July 2000) (http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html); and AOL Chat -- May 2000. Sectarianism is an *extremely* sensitive subject in parts of the UK. People can get murdered simply because they happen to be of the wrong religion or religious denomination. I can well see JKR deciding that giving her wizards (or Harry himself ) a particular religious 'brand' would provoke reactions that would interfere with the story she wants to tell. Pip From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Dec 10 23:56:25 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:56:25 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48102 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Darla " wrote: > There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of > money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several > occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), > why did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? > Yes, I realise it is obviously necessary for the story, *grin*, > but... wouldn't you think they'd want to save it? Put it aside for > school books etc? Or is it just me thinking it's odd? > Darla. Well, for one thing it *didn't* get entirely blown on the holiday. Some of it got spent getting Ron (who after all, had just helped save his little sister's life) an brand new, top of the range wand, probably from Ollivander's. [Fourteen inches, willow, one unicorn hair]. Plus later on in PoA Percy says 'Ron hasn't put all his *new* things in his trunk yet" [PoA, Ch.4 p.52 UK hardback, my emphasis]- which implies that Ron at least got more new stuff than just his wand. Possibly (though this is speculation) part of the money was spent on seeing the other kids kitted out with new books and new robes. After all, five kids at school... I worked out what Lockhart's book list might have cost the Weasleys in Muggle Money equivalent once (ok, I should get out more). Assuming each book is the full hardback price of 17.00 British pounds (common for a UK hardback, and the Lockhart books are described as 'really expensive') Then each child has to be bought 7 books - that's 119 pounds per child. The Weasley's have five children to buy books for - that's 119 times 5 or 595 pounds. Consider that the Hogwart's Book list is probably usually quite standard and can either be picked up second hand or inherited from the older kids, and you see that the Weasley's are faced with a bill for between 4 and 5 hundred pounds that they didn't expect to have. I'm not poor - but if I got suddenly landed with a bill for 400 quid, I'd certainly be going OUCH! So I'm not sure that the Weasley's are as poor as Ron always implies and Harry thinks. They may just not have much in the way of *spare* money - so when spare money arrives in the shape of the Daily Prophet draw, it gets spent on something nice for them all. Pip!Squeak From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Dec 11 00:00:31 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:00:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <20021210202337.45249.qmail@web40514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48103 Maria said: > So Ron's not complaining about their poverty . All he says is > "Why is everything I own rubbish," "I hate being poor" - he says > that about himself. I can understand him - he never gets new > things, Percy does, etc. > > OK, I realize I am kind of rambling, so I'll reiterate my point - > the Weasleys aren't all that poor, but they economize on Ron more > than on other boys because he's the youngest, and it's this that > bothers Ron. I don't see any evidence that the Weasley's economize more on Ron than the other boys. Percy got new robes because of his position as Head Boy. And I don't see Fred and George getting more than Ron from the family. I'm rather surprised to hear people chastising the Weasley family for spending money on the trip to Egypt. It's clear to me, at least, that they value the closeness of the family much more than buying things. And it's not like they're deadbeats. They are an honorable family, who are probably poor mostly because they wished to have a larger family than average. We know that Arthur *could* be making more money at the MoM if he chose to be competitive and seek out promotions; instead, he seems to really like his job and likes to stick with it. I mean, there is a lot more to a good life than having lots and lots of money. And I wouldn't be surprised that being all of Draco's horrible insults to the Weasley family, he's not a wee bit jealous of having brothers and sisters who love each other and their parents so much. Suzanne From urbana at charter.net Tue Dec 10 21:44:35 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne ) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:44:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48104 Darla wrote: > > The wonderful thing about the books, I believe, is J.K's > > originality. Yes, it has a basis on our world- it has to for any > > believablity- but it's so much more then that; it's a world in it's > > own right. And to start attributing parts of our world/beliefs to > it > > when J.K has made no indication to support these beliefs... It just > > doesn't fit. ....There is little > > to no cannon supporting it, and it's quite a grey area... > > Darla. > Then Diane replied: > Just to reiterate Darla: > > Diane said: I can only imagine that it (religion) isn't mentioned in > canon because JKR herself is only averagely religious and therefore > it just hasn't come up yet. > > This goes for much of the UK where religious is tacit rather than > fanatical. I am inclined to agree with your point about being a > lapsed Christian (also grins) Christianity has appeared in canon in > the form of Christmas so all we can assume really is that Hogwarts is > nominally Christian much like the rest of the UK. IMO, I don't think we can really assume that, unless you mean "nominally Christian" in the sense of "culturally Christian", that is, celebrating the standard Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter. I've read all 4 books (the first two twice, which admittedly is not a lot by the standards of this group) but I can't recall any mention in any of them of a chapel, chaplain, or any kind of religious services of ANY stripe. From what I can tell, Hogwarts celebrates Christmas culturally (huge trees, "decorations", holiday break etc.) but not religiously, and I'd bet the same goes for Easter (and I don't recall any kind of Easter- or spring-break holiday mentioned in any of the books, while we do hear about the students either staying at Hogwarts or going home over the Christmas holidays, which sounds like just about any British board school I've ever heard of). At any rate, I haven't seen any thing in HP canon that suggests that Hogwarts has any connection to any particular religion... which is absolutely fine with (and preferable to) me. Anne U (who bets the Sorting Hat has put more than a few stout-hearted agnostics into Gryffindor :-) From strayaluna at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 10 22:29:42 2002 From: strayaluna at bellsouth.net (Dominique Medal) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:29:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Snake spell In-Reply-To: <112.1b94e994.2b26b5d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48105 On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 21:13 US/Central, Lynx412 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/9/02 10:01:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, > melclaros at yahoo.com writes: > > > > Snape's snake-vanishing spell? Well maybe he has to do that on a > regular > > basis, or perhaps he just used a similar very basic "clean up" > spell--one > > which must get A LOT of use in his classroom. At least since > Neville's been > > enrolled. Good idea, but I don't know if it would work. It might only work to clean up actual messes, not to make animals disappear. > ?????? Actually, I find that whole snake spell interesting. My > impression is > that Snape told Malfoy to use it, gave him the incantation right > there. He > wanted to panic Harry. Instead, he reveals Harry's abilities as a > Parseltongue. It also produces Snape's most interesting reaction to > Harry > yet... "Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an unexpected way: It was a > shrewd and calculating look, and Harry didn't like it." We don't know what Snape told Malfoy, but one logical conclusion is that he told him the snake spell. > ?????? Snape triggered that whole bit...and got a different reaction > than he > intended. Which begs the question...is Snape a Parseltongue? And, for > that > matter, why isn't Malfoy, whose whole family has been in Slytherin for > generations. Isn't Parseltongue one of the things Slytherin himself > looked > for in his students? Snape is not a Parsel*mouth* (sorry, this is one of my pet peeves. The person is a Parselmouth, the language is Parseltongue.). It would not make any sense, as JK has deliberately illustrated Parseltongue as being *very* rare. We also know that Draco isn't one, as it seems to move in families - hence Tom Riddle, Heir of Slytherin, being a Parselmouth. I believe that Lucius would have known about this gift if it ran in his family, and Draco would have been scuttling about the corridors, hissing and hoping to find the Chamber. Straya Luna niqui [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 23:35:57 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:35:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Mrs. Figg Mend Her Broken Bone? In-Reply-To: <20021210220346.38689.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021210233557.58215.qmail@web14602.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48106 Andrea wrote:She could've had some other magically-related injury and a cast on the leg was the easiest way to disguise it. We just don't know enough about what happened to make too many assumptions. ME: yes this is true. Really I was trying to explore Mrs. Figg's situation as a guardian. And the broken leg is an example. We know that we will find more out about Arabella in future books, so why not delve more deeply into this. I mean, if she did volunteer to live completely as a muggle cut off from the wizarding world for 16 odd years, that is a HUGE sacrifice. And it also shows the specific and mysterious nature of DD's protection. Why couldn't various wizards just stop by? Or why couldn't Arabella continue her life of magic concealed from Muggles? I am making an assumption here, but Mrs. Figg's broken leg is mentioned three time in three different chapters in PS. Angela From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 23:39:12 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:39:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Mrs. Figg Mend Her Broken Bone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210233912.55538.qmail@web14606.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48107 I wonder if magical medicine, in the same way as Muggle medicine, is in fact a licensed or at least a specialist skill. After all in Chamber of Secrets we saw Gilderoy Lockhart making a total mess of it with Harry's arm so maybe it has to be got absolutely right. Perhaps arabella was not confident of making a perfect job of it so she held back.> Ok true. But if there are specially "licensed" wizard heealth practictioners, then it must be routine for ordinary wizards to go visit them and be treated. Again, this is not so much about the broken bone, as using canon to try and explore Mrs. Figg's life, and her role in the HP saga. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk Wed Dec 11 00:21:00 2002 From: klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk (leopardskinqueen ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:21:00 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Darla " wrote: > Janet:"So, is there no religion in the WW? > > > > Just to echo the point already raised. I should have thought that > > Hogwarts was probably simply nominally C of E or C of Scotland but > > tolerant and making allowances for other religious beliefs. This > > would be the same as the majority of other educational > establishments > > in the UK. Does it have to be even nominally Christian? I have always seen Hogwarts as a state school, rather than a private one. AFAIK, most state schools in England, Wales and Scotland (I'm form NI, so I'm not completley familiar with the system- I'm going on what I've been told by friends here at uni). I have always assumed Hogwarts to be a secular school, but which celebrates Christmas in the same way many secular schools do; as an event which is part of British culture, rather than a religious event. -leopardskinqueen, tentatively making her first post. From seaducer9 at comcast.net Wed Dec 11 00:22:10 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (seaducer9) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:22:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Sirius and The Prank... References: <20021210164151.23422.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009a01c2a0ab$58905160$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48109 --"w charles" wrote: We don't know anything about Snape's familiar background. [Snip] have no information on James' family at all (yet), therefore it's very difficult to guess where that animosity actually came from. --"w charles" Hello all, I would be willing to be that Snape was sort of like Draco, would be #1 in everything, or most everything if it were not for Harry, or in Snape's case James. Snape was probably the leader of at least one group of students, like Draco, but was constantly one-uped by James. I would also be curious if this is why Snape sides with Draco over Harry even though Snape *must* have known that Draco can't wait to join VM, and Snape has denounced VM to DD's satisfaction. On a side note, any thoughts on what becomes of Draco in the nest year, ie does DD let him come back after just about declaring his allegience to VM? Drew Z. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk Wed Dec 11 00:36:56 2002 From: klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk (leopardskinqueen ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:36:56 -0000 Subject: Draco and jealousy(Was: Weasleys and the Problem of Money) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48110 > > I mean, there is a lot more to a good life than having lots and lots of > money. And I wouldn't be surprised that being all of Draco's horrible > insults to the Weasley family, he's not a wee bit jealous of having brothers > and sisters who love each other and their parents so much. > > Suzanne This is something that I have always considered to be a primary motivating factor behind Draco's nastiness to Harry, Ron and Hermoine. His initial dislike of Ron is caused by his father's opinion of the Weasley family, and Hermione because she is Muggle-born. His grudge against Harry is begun by Harry's rejection of his offer to introdue him the the 'right sort' of wizarding families. But why does he continue to concentrate on these three so much? Because they are all rich in things he wants: Ron's large, loving family, Harry's fame and reputation, and Hermione's academic brilliance. They also have the strong friendship of each other. Throughout the books, I have got the impression that Lucius doesn't think much of his son, and sees him more as a tool, someone to carry on the family name and traditions, and not as a son. And I also do not think he has any real friendships- Crabbe and Goyle are just brainless minions, and although Pansy Parkinson seems to like him, as she goes to the Yule Ball with him and seems genuinely upset when he is injured by the Hippogriff, I get the impression that, just like Crabbe and Goyle, he sees her as something to be manipulated and used for his own purposes. Notice, I said 'something'; I think some of Lucius' objectifying of people has rubbed off on him. IMO, the trio are rich in many things Draco would dearly love to have, and this has added fuel to the fire of his dislike and rivalry of the three. -leopardskinqueen From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 00:44:44 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:44:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021211004444.29074.qmail@web40509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48111 Suzanne Chiles wrote: I'm rather surprised to hear people chastising the Weasley family for spending money on the trip to Egypt. It's clear to me, at least, that they value the closeness of the family much more than buying things. And it's not like they're deadbeats. They are an honorable family, who are probably poor mostly because they wished to have a larger family than average. We know that Arthur *could* be making more money at the MoM if he chose to be competitive and seek out promotions; instead, he seems to really like his job and likes to stick with it Me: I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I was not saying they shouldn't've spent the money on holiday, I'm saying that since they did, they're probably not as poor as Ron says they are. I absolutely agree with you that there's nothing wrong with them having a holiday, especially to visit Bill, whom they haven't seen for several years. Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 11 00:54:37 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:54:37 -0000 Subject: Snape, James and Harry WAS Snape and Lily- I just can't see it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Darla " wrote: > I think Harry is more sensitive about his mother and > comments made about her then his father... After all, it's kinda > understandable. He remembers her scream as she *died* for him. And > call it crazy but I believe Snape realises this... and perhaps > holds himself back from bad mouthing her because of it. He is not > really such a bad guy... Yes, he allows his grudge against James > to overcome him often, but... I do believe he has a code of > morals, and iron self control, and enough sensitivity not to push > Harry beyound taunting and into the grounds of real, damaging > cruelty. > Darla. > *********** Quite possible. In PoA, Ch.19, Snape screams at Harry "You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black." [p. 265 ]. Earlier, in Ch. 14, he tells Harry his version of James saving his life, which is extremely unflattering to James. But he has never, ever used against Harry what he must quite surely realise - that the father whose memory Harry idolises is the man whose faulty judgement killed himself and Lily, and nearly killed Harry himself. In a sense, Harry is an orphan because James Potter *was* too arrogant to believe his friends would betray him. Dumbledore offered to be his Secret Keeper. James was warned that one of his friends was a traitor. [Ch. 10 of PoA]. But he preferred not to believe it. But Snape has never said 'your father nearly got you killed', or 'if it wasn't for your father, you wouldn't be an orphan'. That has been left for Harry to work out. What Snape *has* said is that James wasn't a hero, wasn't a saint, and struck Snape, at least, as arrogant. Which may well turn out to be quite true. ;-) Pip!Squeak From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 11 01:15:49 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:15:49 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48113 Shane, not Janet, asked: >> So, is there no religion in the WW? << I get the impression that sports has supplanted religion nowadays, but JKR shows religion as something that must have been important to her wizards in the past. One of the house ghosts is a friar, there are ghost nuns at the Death Day party and monks in a painting. The wizard hospital is named St. Mungo's. But AFAIK there is one historical Christian sect that was friendly to magic: the Gnostics There are some things in the background of the story that make me think the Wizard religion, or one of them, might be an (imaginary) Gnostic sect. The combination of Christian and pagan symbolism, the connection with Egypt, the study of alchemy, the belief that life in this world is not such a great thing, a fatalistic attitude toward suffering, the general lack of religious rituals; all are associated with Gnosticism. Most of all, Gnosticism is dualist: it posits good and evil as equal forces in this world. Any thoughts? Pippin From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Dec 11 01:37:55 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:37:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, James and Harry WAS Snape and Lily- I just can... Message-ID: <10e.1b67c1d4.2b27f0f3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48114 WARNING: LOLLIPOPS mentioned (not an expert on LOLLIPOPS, so bear with me please!) In a message dated 12/10/02 7:56:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk writes: > In PoA, Ch.19, Snape screams at Harry "You'd have died like your > father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black." [p. > 265 ]. Earlier, in Ch. 14, he tells Harry his version of James > saving his life, which is extremely unflattering to James. > > But he has never, ever used against Harry what he must quite surely > realise - that the father whose memory Harry idolises is the man > whose faulty judgement killed himself and Lily, and nearly killed > Harry himself. > > In a sense, Harry is an orphan because James Potter *was* too > arrogant to believe his friends would betray him. Dumbledore offered > to be his Secret Keeper. James was warned that one of his friends > was a traitor. [Ch. 10 of PoA]. But he preferred not to believe it. > > But Snape has never said 'your father nearly got you killed', or 'if > it wasn't for your father, you wouldn't be an orphan'. That has been > left for Harry to work out. > > What Snape *has* said is that James wasn't a hero, wasn't a saint, > and struck Snape, at least, as arrogant. Ooohh....I really like that. James didn't let Dumbledore be the Secret Keeper....wonder why. I suppose it's one of those eternal mysteries. Well, that, and if he would've been, I'm quite certain we wouldn't have a series. ; ) But why would James believe one of his friends was the traitor? In PoA, it's said that James and Sirius were like brothers, so out goes suspicions of Sirius. Lupin just seems like too nice a guy to be a traitor. Peter might've been perceived as weak (and rightfully so IMHO, but that's another story). Is could this be a LOLLIPOPS connection? Severus hates James because he thinks James got Lily killed with his arrogance? (I hope that that connection makes sense to *someone*) ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From seaducer9 at comcast.net Wed Dec 11 01:05:48 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (seaducer9) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:05:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Which friend? References: Message-ID: <00f301c2a0b1$710677a0$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48115 All this talk of the Weasley's money trouble and how Ron handles it got me to thinking about which friend of Harry's might be turned. The first choice is Ron, since he *might* be lured into something for money, albeit against his knowledge. I don't think so, Ron is a pretty smart guy, just doesn't show in Harry's shadow as much. Then you have Hermione, if Ron doesn't sniff out the trouble, she will; remember the Firebolt. Next is Hermoine herself, but I can't see her falling for any tricks, other than the Imperius curse, no worries. Longbottom? Maybe, I can't see him being used yet as he pretty stinks as a wizard, but he might be tempted if promised he'll get better with magic. That leaves me with the Creevey's. They idolize Harry, who pretty much ignores them, even avoids them. Not too much has been written about them yet, but if anyone close to Harry is turned, my money is on them. One question though, about the Unforgivable Curses, all the students except Harry fell to the Imperious Curse. Does that just "turn off", or could those students be brought back under the spell at any time? Drew Z. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From knapp_family at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 01:52:37 2002 From: knapp_family at hotmail.com (docroger56 ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:52:37 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48116 I am new to post but have been reading posts for more than a year. For a few years now I have felt like Arabella Figg was using polyjuice potion as this subject has been well discussed. However I have the feeling that she is either Sirius Black's wife or girlfriend and in being so, Harry's Godmother. This would explain her 14 years of using polyjuice and or living as a muggle. She is meeting her obligation as his Godmother. Since we know the Dursley home is protected by Old Magic, how else would Sirius know where to find Harry when he was trying to see him on Privit Drive. I think he was staying with Arabella. We know Sirius risks being caught by returning to Hogsmead because of his obligation to Harry. I am sure Harry has a Godmother, since we know he has a Godfather. If this subject has been discussed please forgive me. Docroger From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 11 00:59:55 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:59:55 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on Hagrid's wand References: <5b.328dcc93.2b2785f6@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DF68E0B.C5C03EB7@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48119 midgiecat at aol.com wrote: > > > Being as the British MOM has no jurisdiction in other countries on > who > > someone can sell a wand to there.............. > > I was under the impression that the Ministry of Magic was just that, > the > Ministry of Magic, all inclusive, not just for Britain. It was never > called > the MOM-Britain. > > Another point, I felt the headmaster/mistress of schools from the > other > countries seemed to be under the jurisidiction/control of Crouch, > Fudge, > Bagman, et al during the TWT, and remember Karkoroff being questioned > during > the reign of VM - surely if the MOM was just for Britain he would have > been > questioned in his own country under their MOM. > > I think the Ministry of Magic encompasses wizards everywhere. > > Brenda Wendelken > No.. For several reasons I cannot see the British based MOM controling the whole wizard world. For one, the USA Ministry (or whatever they call it there) would never tolerate being told what to do in the US by British Wizards. You simply don't know how Americans are about that sort of thing if you think so.. Another bit, based on this quote -- "Harry Potter, you know," he told the Bulgarian minister loudly, who was wearing splendid robes of black velvet trimmed with gold and didn't seem to understand a word of English. "Harry Potter ... oh come on now, you know who he is ... the boy who survived You-Know-Who ... you do know who he is -" -- AND -- "How do you do, how do you do?" said Fudge, smiling and bowing to Mrs. Malfoy. "And allow me to introduce you to Mr. Oblansk - Obalonsk - Mr. - well, he's the Bulgarian Minister of Magic, and he can't understand a word I'm saying anyway, so never mind. And let's see who else - you know Arthur Weasley, I daresay?" -- Why refer to the Bulgarian minister if Bulgaria doesn't have its OWN MOM? There is also the fact there is NO WAY that Southern Ireland would tolerate being told what to do by the 'British' based MOM. There is also the fact that one 'central government' for all the Wizard world is too 'comunist' to even concider. Every country would demand to be the one in charge and the MOM is not exactly what I would call the WW's United Nations.. And even the UN has countries that refuse to join. The WW is not what anyone would call 'liberal' and I cannot see them buying into the 'New World Order' thing some people in real life are pushing, forgeting the lessons learned in World War I and II.. There is also the fact that we never hear of any non-British employees of the British based MOM. Jazmyn From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 11 01:29:46 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:29:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Worldwide Ministry? was, Thoughts on Hagrid's wand References: Message-ID: <3DF6950A.2F2D2414@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48120 "Cindy " wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, midgiecat at a... wrote: > > > I was under the impression that the Ministry of Magic was just > that, the > > Ministry of Magic, all inclusive, not just for Britain. It was > never called > > the MOM-Britain. > > > > Another point, I felt the headmaster/mistress of schools from the > other > > countries seemed to be under the jurisidiction/control of Crouch, > Fudge, > > Bagman, et al during the TWT, and remember Karkoroff being > questioned during > > the reign of VM - surely if the MOM was just for Britain he would > have been > > questioned in his own country under their MOM. > > > > I think the Ministry of Magic encompasses wizards everywhere. > > Hello there....this is my first post on this group (although I have > been lurking for a while). > > I'd like to respectfully counter (not a flame, just an alternate POV) > this theory with two facts mentioned in the books: > > 1. There is a Department of International Magical Cooperation - why > have one of those if there is only one Ministry? > 2. There is a Bulgarian Minister of Magic (Obalonsk?) mentioned in > GOF. Surely he heads a Bulgarian ministry. > > I could go on, but I think you get the idea. When I was writing my > fic I actually thought about this issue quite a bit. (I ended up > creating an American Department of Magic, which has multiple sub- > departments and is very bureaucratic, much like the actual US > government.) > > Now Voldemort--I could see him wanting to head a worldwide magical > dictatorship.... > > Cheers, > Cindy > I called it the United States Department of Magic myself as most US gov 'departments' start with United States and rarely if ever, American. ie United States Department or Agriculture, etc. In fact, the FBI having a secret group of aurors that even the muggle President doesn't know about, which uses both magic and FBI information resources, while appearing to be muggles. They 'pridicted' the 9-11 terrorist attack, but noone would believe them and another (muggle run) dept took credit for their work anyways. However, I never can finish a story to a point where I would post it anywhere. ;) Also proposed there were three major Magic Colleges in the US. One in Salem, MA, One in San Francisco, CA and one in Austin, TX (based on the fact that Mabry (sp?) Air Force base was the first in Texas to allow Wiccans to openly hold pagan rites on the base, much to the delight of the local radio talk shows and the surprise of everyone else who thought Texas was deep in the bible belt and all. Austin however is populated half by people who moved from California anyways, so the rest of Texas hasn't figured out what to do about their captital being overrun yet.. Texas also has a LARGE Harry Potter fan following as well, so might as well pay hommage to that. ;) Yes, I can see the USDM being very bureaucratic and can see them making sure they have wizards or witches placed in muggle government for ' inteligence reasons '. One fan fic I read had the HP crew coming over and taking out all the 'bad wizards' going over the heada of the local wizarding governement. PLUS having the US Wizards asking for help from the British MOM? What? The US asking for help in their internal problems from ANYONE? The writer must OBVIOUSLY have been stoned because Americans are too bloody proud to ask anyone for help, you know. I would also suspect that there are a LOT more wizards and witches in the US, due to larger overall population and the 'melting pot' ideals of the US, meaning more wizards getting involved with muggles (and giants, house elves, anything breathing). One could only imagine what the 60's were like to the USA's Wizarding World? Oooo.. boy. "Man, I'm so stoned. Is that a centaur your girlfriend is with? Groovy.." (the mind boggles) Another thing though, I can see magic being regulated in the US not so much at the federal level as the state level. ie. It may be illegal to turn someone into a ferret in California, but not Texas. ;) Jazmyn From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 11 01:53:03 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:53:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crushes on HP characters (OT)/Excusssse Me. References: Message-ID: <3DF69A7F.3BA38706@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48121 "ats_fhc3 " wrote: > > jazmyn wrote: > "Actually I am among those who drool over Snape." > > Me too. > "So, seeing a bitter, angry, bad tempered, sarcastic,witty, > intelligent, brave, loyal and sexy (in a gothic sort of way) > character tends to keep my interest peaked and causes me to waste > good money on books, audio CDs, movies, plush-toy Golden Snitches/3 > Headed Dogs and badly designed action figures with bits that fly out > of them. No..no.. I'm not a fan.. really.. I just use them to keep > the dust off the shelves.. thats it.." > > I bought a Snape doll and justified it by saying it was for my best > friend. Well, I did give it to her, but that's no reason to spend an > afternoon...inspecting the doll. She helped!! > Umm... I got mine from Amazon.com so I didn't have to suffer Toys R Us. ;) > "Pity there are no 'real life' guys that interesting these days. I > have NO interest in Sirius and can't see anything 'sexy' about him. > Lupin is mildly interesting, but doesn't really do much for me. > > I think that if I ever met Snape in real life, I would run and turn > the other way. He's too high-maintenence. Lupin's pretty cool, he's > be sweet. If we saw more of him, I could probably develop a crush on > him. Sirius, no. But I'm a Snape fan, and Snape fans tend to not > like Sirius. > Snape is too high-maintenence? Arn't British guys like British cars? They are great to drive, but leak oil and drop parts all over.. They need constant tinkering to keep them running, but their owners love them so much they don't care how much trouble they are. ;) I think I'd look at it as a challenge...though I drive a Chevy cause I can't afford the upkeep on a Jaguar or BMW. > "Lockhart reminds me of my first boyfriend and creeps me out big > time..." > I don't think anyone likes Lockhart. But does anyone find it > interesting that Lupin and Snape are usually referred to as 'Lupin' > and 'Snape', while Sirius is referred to as 'Sirius'? This was > brought up a couple of posts ago, the significance of names. > Feels funny calling someone Black, you know. > Jazmyn also said: > "This was NOT aimed at offending anyone far as RELIGION goes, but > aimed at showing that people in the WW may view the 'magic' > practiced by said people as 'muggles who THINK they can do magic'." > > I have always wondered what wizards thought of those things. Do the > even know that there are some people who think they can do magic? > How would that work, anyway? > I'm sure they get curious when they find books on magic writen by Muggles. Not sure what they would make of Gardner or Scott Cunningham's books..? > "Otherwise, please understand that I was TRYING to present how a > viewpoint of someone from the Wizarding World (if it did > hypothetically exist) would see it." > > I can completely understand...literature can ruffle feathers > sometimes. I didn't read your original post because I have this > terrible habit of deleting posts that don't appear at first glance > to be about Snape. That, and I'm thinking it was an offshoot of the > Hagrid post, and that topic doesn't really interest me. > > "I mean really.. Could you see Snape's reaction if a muggle claimed > they were cursing him by burning his name in the flames of a black > candle or somesuch? Or Hermione's reaction?" > > Snape: 'You're kidding, right?' ::turns person into some fun > creature and puts them in one of his jars:: > This is an interesting topic. If the wizarding world DID exist, how > would they feel about Muggles thinking they do magic? I think that > the WW would be torn between pity (DD and Mr. Weasley, perhaps Mrs.) > and malice (Snape and Hermione, and Malfoy). It would probably go > along the lines of the way the WW is torn about the way they feel > about Muggles in general. > I don't think Snape would turn someone into something.. Moody might. Snape might just sarcasticly 'correct' them and tell them how to properly curse someone, but then tell them they are non-magical and can't perform the curse anyways so its an utter waste for them to learn. He is a teacher.. supposedly. ;) > "At least I was on topic and not talking about house elves and > wizards having relationships, though its not unreasonable to think > they wouldn't when you look at all the half giants and others who > have magical creatures as relatives. Love IS blind after all..." > > In looking at relationships between giants (supposedly 20 feet tall) > and humans (6 feet tall), one can assume that there is a > possibility. That part was the *only* part of Elkins's post that I > read, because I always thought it was an interesting subject. And > yes, love is blind. I'm obsessed with Alan Rickman, and he's 30 > years older than I am. > Hmmm... He is closer to my age, but still older, but as my last 'mate' was 50, age isn't that big a deal anymore. Only problem is, I suspect that Alan is likely gay, being as a large number of male actors are.. I mean if he isn't married at his age, which one fan site seemed to claim he was single? However, I know very little about the actor as I don't tend to research him much. He could in fact be married and have 8 kids for all I know and the fan site I saw might have been wishful thinking? > "(And no, shooting the owl was not meant to offend animal lovers > either..It was meant as dark comedy. After all, I did like the movie > Dogma, but despise platapuses..platapi? Whatever.. )" > > I loved that movie. The platapi/platapuses part was really > funny...You should have done a disclaimer at the beginning. > You know how long it takes to write disclaimers these days? Jazmyn From klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk Wed Dec 11 01:53:38 2002 From: klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk (leopardskinqueen ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:53:38 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: <00f301c2a0b1$710677a0$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48122 My instinct is (and it is just an instinct, I don't have any canonical evidence to back it up) is that history may repeat itself. Pettigrew is compared to Neville (in Harry's nightmare in PoA, he pictures Pettigrew as looking very like Neville) and if Neville was to be the betrayer, it would give events a tragic symmetry. I love Neville, I think he's an adorable character in the books so far, but I think he will be the one. I know the Creevey's hero worship Haryy in the same way Professor McGonagall says Pettigrew hero worshipped James and Sirius, but its Neville he has been compared to in the books, and I feel there is some foreshadowing there. -leopardskinqueen. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, seaducer9 wrote: > All this talk of the Weasley's money trouble and how Ron handles it got me to thinking about which friend of Harry's might be turned. > > The first choice is Ron, since he *might* be lured into something for money, albeit against his knowledge. I don't think so, Ron is a pretty smart guy, just doesn't show in Harry's shadow as much. Then you have Hermione, if Ron doesn't sniff out the trouble, she will; remember the Firebolt. > > Next is Hermoine herself, but I can't see her falling for any tricks, other than the Imperius curse, no worries. > > Longbottom? Maybe, I can't see him being used yet as he pretty stinks as a wizard, but he might be tempted if promised he'll get better with magic. > > That leaves me with the Creevey's. They idolize Harry, who pretty much ignores them, even avoids them. Not too much has been written about them yet, but if anyone close to Harry is turned, my money is on them. > > One question though, about the Unforgivable Curses, all the students except Harry fell to the Imperious Curse. Does that just "turn off", or could those students be brought back under the spell at any time? > > Drew Z. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk Wed Dec 11 02:03:21 2002 From: klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk (leopardskinqueen ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:03:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pickle_jimmy " wrote: > I was reading (again :-P) the shrieking shack chapter of PoA and was > astounded at the length of time Snape was actually in the room and > the amount of the conversation he over-heard before revealing himself. > > Lupin goes through the whole "Black trying to get Snape eaten by a > Werewolf" story, how Snape was jealous of James, how James saved > Snape's live *and* he also reveals that He and his friends created > the Mauraders map (that earlier he had lied about to Snape when the > map was found in Harry's possesion). > > So, now my point: Read the "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" > chapter of PoA and put yourself in Snapes shoes. Then see how long > you could have remained silent for before tearing of the invisibility > cloak and yelling "Ha Haaa, I knew it!!!" > > Pickle Jimmy Yup, it is a very long time! I think it is Snape's deep hatred which was the only thing holding him back. He wanted Remus and Sirius to dig themselves a deeper hole. Particularly Remus- he wanted him to uncriminate himself and say he had been helping Black. The only reason he revealed himself when he did was because it had become apparent to him that Remus was not going to say anything of the sort :) -leopardskinqueen From mariakittens at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 11 03:08:13 2002 From: mariakittens at yahoo.co.uk (mariakittens ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:08:13 -0000 Subject: Hermione's birthday In-Reply-To: <12a.7eb88da.2932d5f8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, patchespup100 at a... wrote: > Is there anybody from the UK out there that can tell us how things operate > there. If not I might be able to find out from a friend I have in England. I've just read this debate from the FAQs page and although its been hammered I still find it really interesting. My opinion is that the Hogwarts age timetable runs the same as the English one. So term starts beg of Sept and you have to be 11 to start the school, just as you do with normal muggle secondary schools. Therefore Hermione would have been 12 on 19th Sept and would have been one of the oldest first year students. Harry is one of the youngest. This has almost happened in my own life as I started school at 11yrs in sept '91 and turned 12yrs in oct '91, however my friends b-day was end of july or in august (it was somewhere amongst the leo astro dates) so she didn't turn 12yrs until 1992, but we were still in the same class/year at school. This also ties in with Dudley going to his secondary school the same time as Harry and the 6 week holidays happening at the same time. I imagine Hogwarts keep to the muggle timetable so that their students don't stick out like a sore thumb by having totally different start dates to the rest of us. Students would be suddenly disappearing out of schools half way through their first muggle term all over the place otherwise! Maria From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 03:25:38 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:25:38 -0000 Subject: Wizard religion (was Excusssse me.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48125 Pipdowns:"Religion is so very much in the background in the WW that it appears to be a deliberate authorial decision." Why so? Aren't most novels silent about religion? What makes the Harry Potter books stand out that way? I argue that JKR's books are quite typical in this. Pipdowns:" JKR does use various Christian symbols (Harry's wand is made of Holly which has been used as a Christian symbol, the Stag that is James's patronus is also a symbol of St Godric, Sirius is Harry's *Godfather*, Hedwig is the name of a Saint who had particular concern for orphaned children, and so on)." Excellent! I didn't pick up on those, except the holly one; and the St. Godric reference is another point for the Heir of Gryffindor hypothesis. And here's another religious reference: St. Mungo's [Hospital for Magical Maladies]. From jodel at aol.com Wed Dec 11 03:41:12 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:41:12 EST Subject: Hermione according to myth Message-ID: <1ab.d6be327.2b280dd8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48127 Ashfae states; << and if Minerva McGonagall is the virgin goddess of the hunt I shall be very surprised. >> Er, you have Minerva confused with Diana. Diana (Artemis) was the virgin goddess of the hunt. Usually associated with a stag or a hound. Minerva (Athena) was the (also virgin, but didn't make a big deal out of it) goddess of wisdom, and in her aspect of Nike, victory. Also patron of weavers. Usually associated with an owl. Not a big deal, but still... -JOdel From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 03:52:51 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Lily- I just can't see it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021211035251.95768.qmail@web13007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48128 "Darla " wrote: there's a lot of cannon that contradicts this idea, such as James and Lily's very hasty marrage after Hogwarts. Not exactly a lot of spare time in between... Me: Upon what are you basing this? We don't know when James and Lily finished Hogwarts. We don't even know that they married before having Harry. They could have had him and decided afterward to marry. Or Lily could have been six months pregnant walking down the aisle. We don't know. As I pointed out, we don't even know whether James and Snape were in the same year, so although it's possible Snape could have resented James for being Head Boy (and not having the position himself that year) I acknowledged that it was indeed speculation. JKR said that Snape was 35 or 36 at the time that GoF was released; if she meant he was one of these ages at the beginning of Harry's fourth year, that would make him 21 or 22 years older than Harry and born in 1958 or 1959. If she meant at the end of the book, he could possibly be only 20 years younger, or born in 1960. If we take the year that would make him youngest, 1960, and if we assume that James and Lily were born the same year, that would make them twenty when Harry was born, or two years out of school. That's not a "very hasty marriage," in my opinion. "Darla " wrote: I can see where people are coming from with the Lily/Snape idea, sort of, but I can't bring myself to believe it. James and Snape are just too different character wise for it to be plausable for Lily to fall for them *both*. Plus, how many relationships have we seen outside of individual Houses? Would Lily and Snape even be good *friends*? If Snape did harbour any feels towards her, I should imagine it was more of a 'I want what James has' rather then Lily herself. Me: That's definitely another possibility in the same boat with the other Snape/Lily theories; it may be that he wanted what James had (I listed the other things); it may have been that Snape had some unrequited feelings for Lily; it may have been that he actually approached her with his feelings and was rejected, while she did not (obviously) reject James, etc., etc. I don't think a Snape/Lily theory depends upon Lily returning any feelings Snape may have had. But desiring a woman who married his rival would somehow make his smoldering resentment of James and Harry feel--more plausible (more so than resenting someone for saving your life, being better at Quidditch or beating you out for Head Boy). So no, you're quite right that there isn't any canon evidence for Lily actually having a relationship with Snape, but that isn't the only possible permutation of the theory. "Darla " wrote: Also, I'm not sure where I get this impression from, but I think Harry is more sensitive about his mother and comments made about her then his father... Me: Hm. I'm not sure where you get this impression either, since it was Aunt Marge specifically insulting his father and calling him an unemployed bum that enraged Harry to the point that he inflated her. I'm glad that we've been given hints that JKR will reveal more about Lily in the fifth book. (It was the fifth book, wasn't it? I may self-destruct if it's not until the sixth.) I wonder whether the information will come from Petunia, Sirius, Snape, Dumbledore or someone else... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Dec 11 03:57:33 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001 ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:57:33 -0000 Subject: Snape, James and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48129 I do believe he (Snape) has a code of > > morals, and iron self control, and enough sensitivity not to push > > Harry beyound taunting and into the grounds of real, damaging > > cruelty. Right, he uses Neville Longbottom, the kid whose parents were tortured to insanity, as his punching bag. Mr. Sensitive to the max... > In PoA, Ch.19, Snape screams at Harry "You'd have died like your > father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black." [p. > 265 ]. Earlier, in Ch. 14, he tells Harry his version of James > saving his life, which is extremely unflattering to James. > But he has never, ever used against Harry what he must quite surely > realise - that the father whose memory Harry idolises is the man > whose faulty judgement killed himself and Lily, and nearly killed > Harry himself. > In a sense, Harry is an orphan because James Potter *was* too > arrogant to believe his friends would betray him. Dumbledore offered > to be his Secret Keeper. James was warned that one of his friends > was a traitor. [Ch. 10 of PoA]. But he preferred not to believe it. Yikes, I don't know that I would characterize that as "arrogant" behavior. Willful blindness, a complete unwillingness to believe that one of the people you've know and trusted and who are part of the pattern of your life is trying to kill you...I could never characterize that as arrogance. Rather, it's denial. If Dumbledore said (did he say in canon???) "James, let me be the Secret Keeper because I know someone close to you is a traitor." And James' response was "No, that can't be possible, I KNOW these guys, it can't be one of them..." That, to me, is a perfectly understandable reaction, and arrogance has no part of it. > But Snape has never said 'your father nearly got you killed', or 'if > it wasn't for your father, you wouldn't be an orphan'. That has been > left for Harry to work out. It is very hard to put the precise blame for an event on one person for their (re)actions at a particular moment in time. So many other things enter into it. At the time of the Potters' death, so much of the Wizard world was in turmoil. Is it so unusual to think that James (and Lily?) might have clutched onto the thought that at least in the middle of all that madness, he felt he could trust his long-time friends? A tragic mistake, but not remotely arrogant. As for Snape never saying to Harry that it was all James' fault that he and Lily were killed and Harry orphaned, I think Snape knows full well that that life is not necessarily a black/white, either/or bargain. People do what they think is right at a particular moment, using the information they have at hand. That information is filtered through their own beliefs and past experiences, and then acted upon. And sometimes, the action results in tragedy. > What Snape *has* said is that James wasn't a hero, wasn't a saint, > and struck Snape, at least, as arrogant. I'm sure that James is not saintly, and I have mentioned in other posts that I think Harry will find out some things about James that will show him in an unflattering light. But, knowing the uneasy history between Snape and James, I hardly think that Snape's assessment can be considered balanced and even-handed. Marianne From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 04:09:21 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:09:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, James and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021211040921.76989.qmail@web13008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48130 "kiricat2001 " wrote: I'm sure that James is not saintly, and I have mentioned in other posts that I think Harry will find out some things about James that will show him in an unflattering light. But, knowing the uneasy history between Snape and James, I hardly think that Snape's assessment can be considered balanced and even-handed. Me: In Snape's defense, this works rather nicely, actually, with my sub-theory about Snape's resentment of James/Harry, which is that he was working with Dumbledore to try to protect the Potters and his efforts were thwarted when Voldemort received the information from Pettigrew about where to find them. Snape does NOT take failure well, as we saw when he did not get to turn in Sirius and receive the Order of Merlin. If, in addition to failing in his duty, he also lost a woman he may have once (or still) desired (whether or not she ever returned his feelings) because of James Potter's perceived arrogance, that could further explain his nastiness toward Harry. Somehow, I don't get the impression that there is no explanation behind the way he treats Harry, Neville and other students who've been on the receiving end of his wrath. We just don't know what the explanation is yet and can only speculate at this point. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Dec 11 04:10:43 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:10:43 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Religion / Wizards and their eye-wear/ meddlesome fools/ Hermione in myth References: Message-ID: <00f401c2a0cb$46c906a0$5ca3cdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 48131 Pip writes: > Religion is so very much in the background in the WW that it appears > to be a deliberate authorial decision. > > JKR does use various Christian symbols (Harry's wand is made of > Holly which has been used as a Christian symbol, the Stag that is > James's patronus is also a symbol of St Godric, Sirius is Harry's > *Godfather*, Hedwig is the name of a Saint who had particular > concern for orphaned children, and so on). I am currently reading the book "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" by Connie Neal, which goes through all four books and pulls out examples of what may or may not be Christian symbolism. Suffice it to say a lot of it is really good. Some things I hadn't noticed. I've been wanting to detail some of them, but didn't really know whether to put it here or on chatter. Since it would quote a good bit of scripture, don't want to offend anyone. Anyway, whether or not there is religion in the WW, I think that JKR has taken great lengths to keep it out of the books as far as blatant religiousity (kids don't go to chapel, for example) while seamlessly integrating Christian symbolism into the books. In a way that you won't find it (usually) unless you look for it. Either that or there are some really big coincidences. And I mean REALLY big. Then of course there's that quote where JKR said if you were familiar with Christian theology you might know how it would all end--something like that. Naama the New writes: So, if magical medicine is so advanced, how come so many wizards still have glasses?! Are they so attached to their spectacles that they won't magically rid themselves of them? I wear glasses since I was six, and I know that if I had a magical solution I'd use it. Well, for some people there is a "magical" solution for us Muggles. Depending on the eye sight problem, there's laser surgery. Which could repair my eyes and I'd never need glasses again. There is also the slightest chance that a mistake could be made and you'd end up blind. A chance I don't want to take. I'd rather wear glasses. Maybe it's that way in the WW. Maybe magic delicate enough to repair a retina is very tricky and has a risk involved. I mean just look at what Gilderoy Lockhart can do with a broken arm. Daniel Brent writes: > What does Lucius mean by "meddlesome fools"? Could this comment to > Harry have something to do with what James and Lily did? Notice, he > uses "they" implying both of them... What did they interfere in? And > how are they similar to Harry? I think it has something to do with them (Lucius and the Potters)fighting on opposite sides. Or possibly, just possibly, one (or both) of the Potters spying on one side while fighting for the other. Maybe. JOdel writes: > Er, you have Minerva confused with Diana. Diana (Artemis) was the virgin > goddess of the hunt. Usually associated with a stag or a hound. Minerva > (Athena) was the (also virgin, but didn't make a big deal out of it) goddess > of wisdom, and in her aspect of Nike, victory. Also patron of weavers. > Usually associated with an owl. And war. Minerva's goddess of wisdom and war. Can't forget war. Owls she used to send messages. Hmm, sounds familiar. And there was that time she told Perseus how to defeat Medusa. Could McGonagall give Harry a clue in the final battle? I know, I know, I mention that ALL the time. Can't help it, I like McGonagall. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lrcjestes at earthlink.net Wed Dec 11 04:17:01 2002 From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:17:01 -0000 Subject: Crushes on characters (why Sirius appeals to me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: > > Someone had asked before when you first started identifying or being drawn > to a character. Sirius Black is by far my favorite character in the > Potterverse, but I don't think I started feeling that way after reading PoA > or even GoF for the first time. I think it had to have been after about the > second or third time through as I sifted through all the myriad clues of > evidence, etc. that I started reflecting on his pathos and it got to me. I was sold after the first time I read PoA. Sirius has always been my favorite character. I don't know what exactly it was that I found attractive, but I don't see him as the bully a lot of the Snape fans see him as and I just do not find Snapes stringy hair and bad attitude towards the students attractive. Yes he's mysterious, but ick. I don't mean to offend all you Snape fans here, to each their own. >From what I read of Sirius he's a loyal friend, perhaps on the arrogant side as a teen, but he was realistically written teen boy (don't get me started on the prank..I know it's a major issue with snapefans) handsome, funny, talented, not a saint and has a cool bike. What's not to love? Yeah he has a bit of a temper at times when he was young, but I'm with the PTSD crowd and think a lot of his irrational actions in PoA come from his instability as a result of being cooped up with Dementors for 12 years and then being afraid the guy who sent you there is going to kill the last remaining vestage of your old life who you promised his parents that you would be his guardian if they were to die. He's got a lot of reasons for his irrational behavior...how about Snape? I see Sirius as a good guy who's been though a lot and it's still not over for him, he's still eating rats for god sake. I see Snape as a mean bitter guy who doesn't appreciate what he has and is determined to help everyone get theirs...you can tell he's just not a happy guy, what on earth is attractive about that? > This is from an adult woman who has never felt drawn to a fictional > character before. I'm with you Athena...Sirius has it (besides he was written that way...JKR said so herself :) Carole one of the original lurking oldy Sirius fanatics... :) running off to hide now from the potions the snapefans are trying to throw at me ;) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 04:38:28 2002 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214 ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:38:28 -0000 Subject: Crushes on characters (why Sirius appeals to me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "siriusgeologist " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Linda C. McCabe" > wrote: > I was sold after the first time I read PoA. Sirius has always been > my favorite character. I don't know what exactly it was that I found > attractive, but I don't see him as the bully a lot of the Snape fans > see him as and I just do not find Snapes stringy hair and bad > attitude towards the students attractive. Yes he's mysterious, but > ick. I don't mean to offend all you Snape fans here, to each their > own. Me: Well, I like them both, but I think somebody on the list mentioned that it might be easier to identify with Sirius' suffering simply because it is on the surface. I kind of agree. I was also sold on Sirius after my first PoA reading. Specifically after I learned that he was unjustly imprisoned and escaped from Hell. Somehow his suffering sounded very real to me. I don't have to try to hard to imagine the Azkaban. In the country where I originally come from any prison is hell. Even if you never been in one ( I luckily was not :)), you know that it is simply impossible to come back from the prison undamaged. It is in your subconscious, I guess. I was amazed that Sirius did not loose his ability to love and yes I wnated to hug him and make it all better. :) > From what I read of Sirius he's a loyal friend, perhaps on the > arrogant side as a teen, but he was realistically written teen boy > (don't get me started on the prank..I know it's a major issue with > snapefans) handsome, funny, talented, not a saint and has a cool > bike. What's not to love? Yeah he has a bit of a temper at times > when he was young, but I'm with the PTSD crowd and think a lot of his > irrational actions in PoA come from his instability as a result of > being cooped up with Dementors for 12 years and then being afraid the > guy who sent you there is going to kill the last remaining vestage of > your old life who you promised his parents that you would be his > guardian if they were to die. > > He's got a lot of reasons for his irrational behavior...how about > Snape? I see Sirius as a good guy who's been though a lot and it's > still not over for him, he's still eating rats for god sake. I see > Snape as a mean bitter guy who doesn't appreciate what he has and is > determined to help everyone get theirs...you can tell he's just not a > happy guy, what on earth is attractive about that? Me: Yes, I agree with you. Do you know the strange thing? Prank made me like Sirius even more. Nope, I don't want to see Snape dead at all. But I cannot wait to read full blown confrontation between them and mutual apology, which I am sure happens sooner or later. :o) Yep, I don't think that Severus was entirely blameless in that matter. We just don't know that yet. :) > > This is from an adult woman who has never felt drawn to a fictional > > character before. Me: me too :) Alla From dorigen at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 03:20:26 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:20:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which friend? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48134 klc3 at st-andrews.ac.uk said: >My instinct is (and it is just an instinct, I don't have any canonical >evidence to back it up) is that history may repeat itself. Pettigrew >is compared to Neville (in Harry's nightmare in PoA, he pictures >Pettigrew as looking very like Neville) and if Neville was to be the >betrayer, it would give events a tragic symmetry. I thought of this too, but there is one very important difference: Pettigrew gave in to evil through cowardice. Neville is not a coward. He stood up to Harry & Co. in the first book, he endures Snape's constant tormenting, and I've always assumed that courage was why he was put in Gryffindor. It's possible (in fact likely) that Neville could be used as a dupe, but if confronted with threats he would probably refuse to give in. Consider, after all, whose child he is. Isn't it likely that Neville has inherited *some* of the characteristics of a top-flight Auror and his wife who were strong enough not to break under torture? And also that he'd find the strength somewhere not to disgrace the memory of his parents? (Remember what his grandmother said about "upholding the family honor.") Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From bobafett at harbornet.com Wed Dec 11 05:06:04 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:06:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg References: Message-ID: <003701c2a0d3$03e6dbc0$4dedaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48135 docroger56 said: >>>... I have the feeling that [Arabella Figg] is either Sirius Black's wife or girlfriend and in being so, Harry's Godmother. This would explain her 14 years of using polyjuice and or living as a muggle. She is meeting her obligation as his Godmother. Since we know the Dursley home is protected by Old Magic, how else would Sirius know where to find Harry when he was trying to see him on Privit Drive... <<< --------------------------------------- My response: Sirus Black was there when Hagrid got Harry to bring him to his relatives, the Dursleys. Sirus was the owner of the motorcycle Hagrid was on. Because Sirius was Harry's Godfather and not implicated as of yet, I'm sure Hagrid would have told him where Harry was going at that time if Sirius had not known. But good idea on Mrs Figg. "BoBaFeTT" From gaby_st2002 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 05:24:38 2002 From: gaby_st2002 at yahoo.com (gaby stevenson) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:24:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021210121346.01288c70@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <20021211052438.96408.qmail@web14701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48136 Ron is going to become evil. The path that he has seemed to choose makes this clear. It isn't only his bitterness that makes him more suspectible to this, but also the fact that he seems so inclined to be "famous" and better than not only his brothers, but Harry as well. His soul might not have the inherent cruelty and malciousness that is consistent with death eaters and such, but he is growing into that type of being. It would be a great plot twist if Harry must choose to kill Ron in order to save the wizarding world from Voldemort, and being that Ron is Harry's close friend he would be a great tool for Voldemort to obtain. JK seems to be building this confrontation through the novels, because each year Ron seems to loose some goodness within him and he is growing darker as a being. Gaby --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Wed Dec 11 07:17:48 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:17:48 EST Subject: Ministry jurisdiction(s) was; Thoughts on Hagrid's wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48137 Brenda Wenelken states; >> was under the impression that the Ministry of Magic was just that, the Ministry of Magic, all inclusive, not just for Britain. It was never called the MOM-Britain. Another point, I felt the headmaster/mistress of schools from the other countries seemed to be under the jurisidiction/control of Crouch, Fudge, Bagman, et al during the TWT, and remember Karkoroff being questioned during the reign of VM - surely if the MOM was just for Britain he would have been questioned in his own country under their MOM. << As to whether other Ministries exist; The MoM for Bulgaria was with Fudge at the World Cup. So clearly the British Ministry does not represent all of Europe. Otoh, Fudge accepted the Cup for Ireland, so the British Ministry does not represent only the modern-day UK. I suspect that the Ministry jurisdictions do not exactly match the current political boundaries of Muggle governments, but that there is at least some similarity to them. As to the Death Eater trials; I suspect that these were a complex business undertaken under a combination of jurisdictions, possibly hosted in Britian. Or, given the basicaly anarchic structure of wizarding society, a DE may have had to stand more than one trial if their alleged activities took place in different Ministry's jurisdictions. Karkarof's trial appears to have dealt primarily with crimes which took place in Britian, and virtually all of the names he gave the court are presumed to be those of English wizards. (Doholov may have been a resident alien.) -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Wed Dec 11 07:17:57 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:17:57 EST Subject: What is the purpose of the WW? Message-ID: <120.1ab3a60e.2b2840a5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48138 Chris asks: >>This is my private theory, which probably come from reading to many fantasy novels while waiting for OOP. Some time back the Human race was visited by a group of extremely powerful beings, we might call them gods, << Theories are fun. I have my "origin" story posted on; http://www.redhen-publications.com It's in the "Publications" area. My sample piece, entitled, "Just-So". Not a bit original, but I've not seen the elements combined in quite this order before... As to the purpose of the WW, I'd say you've got that pretty well. and yes, it is VERY important that Muggles be convinced that magic is not real. Makes things simpler all round. (Of course from a Muggle point of view, the very best thing wizards ever did for us was to isolate themselves and get the hell out of our way. About ten minutes after they slammed the door we were making accurate scientific observations and giving technology a boot to the bum-- because we no longer had any yo-yos tampering with the observable data or contaminating our experiments! And once the idea sank in that "magic" was a crock and we were only being limited by our ignorance, we seem to have made MUCH better progress. Magic? Feh. Give you a farthing for it.) -JOdel From wynnde1 at aol.com Wed Dec 11 10:31:14 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 05:31:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's birthday Message-ID: <14.4475f00.2b286df2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48139 > patchespup100 at a... asked: > > Is there anybody from the UK out there that can tell us how things > operate > > there. If not I might be able to find out from a friend I have in > England. > > > To which Maria responded: > > My opinion is that the Hogwarts age timetable runs the same as the > English one. So term starts beg of Sept and you have to be 11 to > start the school, just as you do with normal muggle secondary > schools. Therefore Hermione would have been 12 on 19th Sept and > would have been one of the oldest first year students. Harry is one > of the youngest. > Now me: It's not like that in Scotland, however, at least not where I live (in East Lothian, near Edinburgh). I'm not sure what the exact cut-off date is (sometime in December, I think), but my son will turn five on 12 October next year, and would have been starting at the primary school in August before his birthday.* So, if Hogwarts (which is also in Scotland) follows this system, then Hermione would have been 10 when she started at Hogwarts, and turned 11 on 19 September of her first year. This is *my* personal opinion of the way it works, but really, either of us could be right - JKR can put her cut-off date anywhere she likes. Although Dumbledore's comment to Harry and Hermione in chapter 21 of PoA (that no one would believe the word of two thirteen-year-old wizards), leads me to believe that they were both thirteen at that time, which means Hermione would have had to have started at Hogwarts before her 11th birthday. :-) Wendy * I say my son "would have started" next year because he won't actually be going to school here - we're moving back to the US in January. :-( Hopefully, though, this won't keep him off the list for Hogwarts - he's all set to go there when he gets old enough, and is fond of saying that the sorting hat is going to put him in Ravenclaw, and he has a small plastic cauldron that he plays with and says that Professor Snape is going to teach him to make potions. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Dec 11 10:57:15 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:57:15 -0000 Subject: James and Snape in the same year? was Re: Snape and Lily- I just can't see it In-Reply-To: <20021211035251.95768.qmail@web13007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48140 Barb wrote: << As I pointed out, we don't even know whether James and Snape were in the same year.>> I actually think that we can say with a fair degree of certainty that they *were* in the same year. All evidence from UK hardback edition of PoA:- p. 259 Lupin gives us sufficient information to know that the marauders were in the same year together. When discussing animagus transformation he says "Finally, in our fifth year, they managed it". IMO if they were in different years, Lupin would have said "finally in *my* fifth year.... p.261 discussing Snape: "We were in the same year". Thus whilst there is no passage which states that James was in the same year as Snape, we do know that James was in the same year as Lupin who was in the same year as Snape. IMO this is evidence that they were in the same year together. Ali Who agrees that there must be something in the Snape/Lily relationship. From dunphy_shane at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 13:07:20 2002 From: dunphy_shane at hotmail.com (shane dunphy) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:07:20 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Religion / Wizards and their eye-wear/ meddlesome fools/ Hermione in myth Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48141 Richelle wrote: >I am currently reading the book "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" by >Connie Neal, >which goes through all four books and pulls out examples of >what may or may not be >Christian symbolism. Me: That sounds fascinating. Who is it published by? I (as Pippin was kind enough to point out) started this thread, and there's been plenty of interesting discussion and a great exchange of ideas. I suppose that what my original thought was was that there's obviously a Christian *framework* to the Hogwarts school year (Christmas, Easter etc), but this is probably cultural. England, the States, Ireland are all Western nations, and Christian cultural attitudes have pervaded, even for people who are atheistic or non-practicing. This does not mean that Hogwarts is moderately Christian. JKR is very different from other fantasy writers (C S Lewis, JRR Tolkien, William Horwood) who make religion a very explicit part of their mythos. With JKR I do believe that its *there*, its just deeply buried. My own thoughts are that there is certainly a Christianesque influence to the WW. People have already pointed out the Fat Friar, ghost nuns, St Mungos and many other Christian-type names and places. Does this, however, mean that the main religion in the WW is some form of lapsed Christianity? I doubt it. There are a couple of reasons for my doubt. Firstly, the general attitudes in the WW are very different to that of the MW. The world view is different and much more easy-going. People seem less hung-up. Also, there has been a seperation of the two cultures for many hundreds of years. It seems to me that even before this very decisive seperation the two cultures weren't exactly living in one another's pockets. It is therefore reasonable to assume that something as culturally important and influential as religion would be similarly seperate. Now, how do we have all these religous names, and the nuns and monks and whatnot? This is an interesting question, and I think brings us back to the whole idea of archetypes. We've discussed this in several threads, and I think that it applies to this one too. According to thinkers like Carl Jung, there exist in all human societies things called *archetypes*. These are usually symbols, concepts or ideas that reflect a common truth or reality. If we look at the religions across the world, we can see that certain ideas exist in them all: the idea that we should try and be nice to one another, that there is a power greater than all of us, the idea of an after-life of some kind...these are universal - *archetypal*. Taking this into consideration, we can see that in the WW, some aspects of Christianity have seeped in. Maybe the Wizarding religion has adopted some Christian ideas. However, I bet that the way that it is constructed and used is very different to our Muggle approach to Christianity. And somehow, I'd also bet that if there is a wizarding Bible, its a very different text to our own. There are bound to be some major Wizarding religous figures, wizards who have made great steps forward in the field of spirituality or personal development who would be included in the central text. There was also a comment that perhaps the WW had embraced some form of Gnosticism, as it was sympathetic to magic and was also dualistic. I think that this is a goood idea, but again, I think that this is a still a very muggle based approach. A wizarding religion would probably take some of this, adapt it and imprint a different cultural ethos. Of course, if religion is brought up (and I doubt it will be) in canon, isn't it possible that some of our major religous figures could be in fact wizards? Miraculous powers, anyone... Just a thought (and not a blasphemous one, I hope). Shane. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Dec 11 13:13:09 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:13:09 -0000 Subject: Potterverse dualism (was Wizard religion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48142 Pippin wrote: > > There are some things in the background of the story that make > me think the Wizard religion, or one of them, might be an > (imaginary) Gnostic sect. (Snip) > Most of all, > Gnosticism is dualist: it posits good and evil as equal forces in > this world. I think the jury is still out on whether the Potterverse itself is dualist. We know so little about what makes the Dark Arts dark: intention, the magic itself, or the ugliness of the means required to do it. You could argue that many wizards are dualist in their outlook: Hagrid's loose references to the Dark Side (though it's unclear if he means the other side in a war, or the dark side of magic itself), the general belief among the student body in COS that to have defeated Voldemort as a baby Harry must be a powerful dark wizard, the belief that beings such as giants are intrinsically evil. Dumbledore's statement that it might be good enough to continually in each generation keep Voldemort from coming back is intriguing in this light (assuming it's not tactical misdirection): if Dumbledore were a dualist he might say with Gandalf that every generation has its Voldemort, or that Voldemort is a catspaw of an eternal evil. It's also interesting that though some Beasts are characterised as Dark there is no attempt to wipe them out systematically: it's OK to kill a Basilisk if it turns up at school, but wizarding legislation seems to recognise only danger, not evil, in Beasts. David From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Dec 11 13:33:36 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:33:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Appearances (etc) Message-ID: <15f.1853bcf1.2b2898b0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48143 Debbie: >naama2486 wrote: >> I've been wondering about something- whenever a student at Hogwarts >> gets sick, hurt, beaten, cursed at, whatever they get to Madam >> Pomfrey, and get cured farely quickly. And she's only a nurse. > >Me: I have wondered about this too. Aren't there any wizard doctors? >Or are the "nurses" good enough that "doctors" aren't necessary? Do we know she's *only* a nurse? There are mediwizards at the QWC and I think that some regard Madam Pomfrey as the same. It's not clear that there's a distinction between the two disciplines as there is in the Muggle world and when you think about it, long ago, much "medicine", at least in our culture*, was in the hands of women - the kind of wise women with knowledge of plants and potions who were denounced as witches periodically throughout history. The concept of the "doctor" I think only really came in with the discovery of "scientific" medicine and its domination by men and that of the "nurse" as a professionally trained care giver with Florence Nightingale. Magical medicine probably predates both of these and does not necessarily embrace these Muggle concepts. sixhoursahead: > People were mentioning about why wizards do not correct their > vision. We all know that the magic in HP has definite boundaries, > some we have seen, some we have not, and some are hinted at. Like, > why can Bill Weasley conjure tableclothes, but Mrs. Weasley can't > conjure new school robes? Obviously there is a definite limit here, > and with good reason, the wizard society is just as apitalist as > muggle society. JKR explained in interview once that items which are conjured do not last. So conjuring tablecloths is OK. The worst that will happen is that you'll suddenly find yourself eating off a bare table. But conjuring robes could have disadvantages. Even given that you could conjure a new set, you might not be certain when the ones you were wearing would disappear! It makes me wonder about the sauce that came out of Molly's wand, though. Was this just to make the food palatable, whilst having no nutritional value, I wonder? It could be rather dangerous, really. Say you conjured some sweets and got lots of sugar into your system, so that your body started producing lots of insulin and then the sugar all suddenly disappeared from your bloodstream. Could you fall into a hypoglycaemic coma? In the same vein, I am tempted to believe that > > wizards cannot permanently alter their physical appearances. If they > could, then you would think a large majority of them would look like > supermodels. So obviously they can use Polyjuice Potion for a short > time. Or even shrink their teeth, or sleek their hair for a night, > or use some of Madame Pomfrey's medicine to get rid of acne (though > when Eloise Midgen tries to simply magick her acne off, there are > disastrous consequences). But I believe that it is impossible for > wizards to fundamentally change their appearances just because they > want to. Although Hermione's tooth-shrinking appears to have been permanent, doesn't it? And they can remove or regrow bones. If Lockhart's de-boning hadn't been a permanent thing, they could just have waited for Harry's bones to regrow of their own accord. I do think, though, that perhaps it is only properly trained specialist medi-wizards who are capable of effecting such permanent changes reliably. So you'd have to visit the equivalent of a Wizard plastic surgeon. Eloise Midgen and Lockhart were attempting the wizard equivalent of highly skilled medicine and it back-fired. Even Madam Pomfrey didn't manage to get Eloise's nose back on in exactly the right position, which suggests that wizard cosmetic surgery is a difficult and probably specialised art. An important exception is Voldemort, who is drastically > > physically changed, and looks nothing like Tom Riddle, but obviously > these transformations came about through the most powerful of Dark > Magic. Yes, I agree. And I don't think he *aimed* at altering his appearance, but that this was a side-effect of more fundamental transformations. Voldemort is seeking immortality; the snake is a symbol of immortality and so his snake-like appearance may be a reflection of transformations he underwent in pursuit of that specific end. Eloise Off to check the position of her nose (and wishing there were a spell to put off permanently the fast-approaching hour when she's going to need reading glasses.) * I know that there seem to have been doctors, probably male, in (for example) ancient Roman or Egyptian culture. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From 7dragons at immajer.com Wed Dec 11 14:54:56 2002 From: 7dragons at immajer.com (AD) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:54:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Religion / Wizards and their eye-wear/ meddlesome fools/ Hermione in myth fools/ Hermione in myth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20021211095456.00a4a3a0@127.0.0.1> No: HPFGUIDX 48144 Disclaimer: This is my first post, and I'm probably doing it all wrong. I hope that a helpful Elf will advise me of my mistakes. :) I find this thread extremely interesting, and have been trying to keep up with all its posts -- but failing in the attempt. (I need a Time-Turner, badly, just to get through my average day.) And I feel sure that someone must have pointed this out already, but if so, I haven't found the message... What about the numerous 'witch-hunts' throughout history? Weren't most of them performed in the nominal name of Christianity? Wouldn't that history of Christian persecution sour some/many/most people in the WW toward the religion -- or at the least, create a conviction that even if the faith itself is on target, the Muggles performing it are doing it entirely the wrong way? For that matter, it seems to me that every human religion in its current form is defined by our perception of the universe, and what is possible and not possible. But many of the 'miraculous deeds' performed in the Old and New testaments could have been performed (or simulated) by a moderately-trained witch or wizard -- which would reduce or entirely eliminate the sense of awe and reverence associated with such deeds. For that reason, I personally have trouble envisioning anyone in the WW being "extremely religious" -- at least, according to any of the parameters *we* would set for religion. Part of the purpose of religion, in human psychology, is to explain the unexplainable... but as people in the WW would have very different parameters of 'unexplainable', it seems foolish to think that their version of religion would have much in common with ours, even if the names were the same. No doubt, someone has also already pointed out that the trappings of Christmas -- the decorations and trees and so forth -- actually predate the traditions of Christianity, going back to old Pagan traditions. I'm not a historian and can't debate the topic with any great degree of knowledge, but I do know that most of our 'modern' holidays are associated with traditions that have been around since effectively forever. So there's no reason why the WW wouldn't use the same methods of celebration as the Muggle world, but perhaps with a different (or no) significance to them. But another question that's probably already been raised -- How would a Muggle-born witch or wizard who was raised in an extremely religious family adapt to the knowledge of his or her nature? So many lines of faith state that magic is inherently evil, comes from Satan, etc... How would the child cope with the knowledge? And what would his/her family do? And what, if any, intervention would come from the WW? ...Here's hoping I didn't mess up this first post too badly, or restate the obvious (or other people's questions) too many times. :) =AD From potter76 at libero.it Wed Dec 11 16:43:28 2002 From: potter76 at libero.it (Rita) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:43:28 +0100 (ora solare Europa occ.) Subject: Flesh-eating slug repellent Message-ID: <3DF76B30.000003.40239@i3a2c5> No: HPFGUIDX 48145 This is a dead thread I'd like to resurrect for a moment because re-reading PoA I found something interesting. People has been wondering if flesh-eating was an attribute to the slugs or the repellant, both possibilities make quite sense but I've always believed in the first. Now I can give you proof that those who share my same belief are in the right because in 'The Boggert in the Wardrobe' ch, p. 101 UK edition Lupin talks about flesh-eating slugs. The only problem left now is for what reason in the world the slugs were attacking cabagges in CoS! But maybe they're just omnivorous, whereas the other slugs eat only..... actually I don't know what slugs eat but I guess it's not flesh. R. From mo.hue at web.de Wed Dec 11 16:55:11 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:55:11 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crushes on characters (why Sirius appeals to me) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48146 On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:24:04 -0800, "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: > Someone had asked before when you first started identifying or being drawn > to a character. Sirius Black is by far my favorite character in the > Potterverse, but I don't think I started feeling that way after reading PoA > or even GoF for the first time. I think it had to have been after about the > second or third time through as I sifted through all the myriad clues of > evidence, etc. that I started reflecting on his pathos and it got to me. I was taken with Sirius right after the first time I read PoA, that was in May 2000. I had to wait six weeks for GoF to come out, and I remember very well how afraid I was that he might be the announced death in Book 4. At the time, he seemed a very likely candidate to me, and while I wouldn't have wanted it to be one of the students, I admit I was relieved it wasn't him. > I started feeling the draw of the hurt-comfort emotional model towards him. > I wanted to do what JKR has refused to do for Sirius, provide him a > sanctuary and give him comfort. This long-suffering wrongly accused and > imprisoned man has been living on the run for two years living off of rats > and other vermin, sleeping in forests and caves. Yeeesh, all I want to do > it to give him a nice warm bath, get rid of those nasty robes he's lived in > for fourteen years now, get rid of the fleas and ticks he's picked up from > the Forbidden Forest, give him a nice hot meal and then comfort him from the > demons that have been haunting him for years. I want to provide him human > companionship, something he's been denied for far too long. Yes, I want to > give him comfort and ease his pain. Heavy sigh. And then because he still > is a fugitive, he'd be afraid to leave the sanctuary I was willing to > provide him. He'd be mine, all mine. Well, you said it all much better than I could possibly do with my limited vocabulary. ;) I guess for me it was this great injustice that he had suffered that drew me to him over everything else. Yes, it's true that he is angry and that he sometimes gets more violent than most of us can tolerate, but after twelve years in a place like Azkaban, surrounded by Dementors day and night, it's not really surprising. Just IMHO. > All you Snape fans can dream about how angsty and misunderstood your Severus > is, I am interested in his nemesis. Me too. Snape only became threedimensional to me at the end of GoF, before that he was just the stereotype of a horrible teacher. Yes, you can see that something is nagging at him even before, but I'm with Carole here, I cannot find anything attractive about his bitterness. And his Death Eater career isn't really something that makes him more attractive to me either, but at least it sheds some light on what we see of him in the Shrieking Shack. IMHO what we see there is a glimpse of Snape the Death Eater. Yes, I know he was convinced he was dealing with a murderer then, I just wanted to point out that he is capable of violence and fanaticism, too. I can't imagine him being an innocent bystander of Voldemort's crowd and leaving before he actually did something bad. Yes, I am interested in knowing what made him leave Voldemort and turn to the good side, and given the fact that he has already redeemed himself, I don't see why he should be punished for what he did as a Death Eater. He is way more useful to the wizarding world as a free man. I just think all the Snape fans who think Sirius should be punished for his "crimes" in PoA after all the abuse he's already been through, might want to consider that Snape seems to get away with a lot of things, too. > This is from an adult woman who has never felt drawn to a fictional > character before. The same here. At least not in the way of feeling the urge to defend someone who doesn't actually exist. ;-) Monika From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 17:23:37 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:23:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape (Was Re: Snape, James and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021211172337.2705.qmail@web40506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48147 Marianne wrote: Yikes, I don't know that I would characterize that as "arrogant" behavior. Willful blindness, a complete unwillingness to believe that one of the people you've know and trusted and who are part of the pattern of your life is trying to kill you...I could never characterize that as arrogance. Rather, it's denial. If Dumbledore said (did he say in canon???) "James, let me be the Secret Keeper because I know someone close to you is a traitor." And James' response was "No, that can't be possible, I KNOW these guys, it can't be one of them..." That, to me, is a perfectly understandable reaction, and arrogance has no part of it. Me: I agree that this isn't arrogance. But James does seem to be a poor judge of character. You say that he didn't believe that one of his friends could betray him. But it's my opinion that he was sure that it was Lupin. Sirius said that he thought Lupin was the spy and that he convinced James make Wormtail his Secret-Keeper. I'm sure that one of the arguments he used was that he was sure Lupin was the spy. James probably believed it, since I really can't think of another reason as to why Sirius is both best man at the wedding and Harry's godfather. Marianne: As for Snape never saying to Harry that it was all James' fault that he and Lily were killed and Harry orphaned, I think Snape knows full well that that life is not necessarily a black/white, either/or bargain Me: Well, Snape doesn't exactly mind spreading the blame for the Prank evenly among Lupin, Sirius and James, even though Lupin wasn't to blame, as far as we know. So, I'm sure Snape'd have no scruple in assigning the blame to James, unless he had reasons not ot do so, or if he didn't really want to hurt Harry. Also, we don't know why James didn't agree to make Dumbledore his Secret-Keeper. IMO James didn't want to endager Dumbledore, because having a living and sane Dumbledore was just essential. And another question concerning Lupin: why does Snape hate him? As far as the Prank goes, Sirius is the one to blame, since it was him who actually told Snape where to go to find Lupin. Snape's hate of James is also understandable. But I can't understand why Snape hates Lupin. We haven't heard Snape say about Lupin's behavior to him. Does he just really, really detest werewolves? Or does he hate "James and everyone who was friends with him" up to the point where the hatred is blind? Or did something else happen that we don't know about? Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From probono at rapidnet.com Wed Dec 11 17:51:39 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (Tanya) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:51:39 -0700 Subject: Dumbledore's ancient magic (was: What is the purpose of the WW?) In-Reply-To: <1039568081.3217.90635.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48148 Christopher Nuttall wrote: Dumbledore uses an old magic, the exact nature of which is not disclosed, to keep Harry safe. I must question his skill with it, as Dobby, Fred and George and Mr. Weasliy are all able to enter at one time or another. Where does that spell come from and why is it based on blood ties? Now me: Maybe the magic that Dumbledore uses is similar to that used on the Mirror of Erised in PS/SS. Perhaps only those seeking (seeking, but not desiring to harm Harry) can find him? I've always wondered about that quote from Dumbledore. "It was one of my most brilliant ideas, and between you and me, that's saying something." (Don't have the book, sorry if that's not entirely accurate). -Tanya From probono at rapidnet.com Wed Dec 11 18:01:19 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (Tanya) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:01:19 -0700 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <1039568081.3217.90635.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48149 Maria Kirilenko wrote: I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I was not saying they shouldn't've spent the money on holiday, I'm saying that since they did, they're probably not as poor as Ron says they are. Now Me: There are a few other references to the Weasley's wealth. Draco mentions all the Weasley's have more children then they can afford and I believe it was in CoS? that Harry goes to Gringott's with the Weasley's and is embarressed to see them clean out the last remnants of their small fortune. I think Mr. and Mrs. Weasley value family and morals far more than wealth. Arthur could be more discreet with his passion for Muggles if he thought it would help his career, but he isn't. I think the strength of the Weasley family is the backbone of the Potter books. Voldemort has a knack for destroying families and yet the Weasley's have survived so far and I think they will survive through to the end of the series. I don't think any of them will turn evil per say, but they might make some bad decisions along the way. I see Percy following in Crouch's footsteps and I also see Lucius wreaking havoc with them and making their future lives very unpleasant. -Tanya From kaityf at jorsm.com Wed Dec 11 18:57:05 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:57:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <18450995460.20021210112335@earthlink.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021210121346.01288c70@mailhost.jorsm.com> <5.1.1.6.0.20021210121346.01288c70@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021211124530.033148d0@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48150 >Carol wrote: > > But that's Ron's interpretation of the twins. I don't see the twins > > deliberately choosing evil in order to make money. Susanne replied: >I have to say, imo the same goes for Ron. > >Any character in HP could fall for a trick or have the >Imperius curse used on them (since Harry seems to be the >only one of the kids who can resist this curse, so far), but >I truly can't see Ron join Voldemort deliberately just to >get some gold. I don't think Ron -- or any of the Weasleys -- would *deliberately* join Voldemort for gold or any other reason. I don't think that any of them would join Voldemort at all. What I was saying about Ron is that Voldemort could use Ron's bitterness about his lack of money and his jealousy to his (LV's) advantage. >He might go for a scheme, thinking he is doing something >good and making money in the process, but becoming a >death eater for money or to get back at Harry? This is the same thing I was trying to say. Ron could get tricked into doing something that he thinks is good, but which turns out to be something Voldemort has planned. It is, after all, getting harder and harder to tell who's good and who's not, and we do know that when Voldemort was in power before, no one knew who could be trusted. I don't think Ron would ever become a Death Eater, nor do I think that he would set out to deliberately hurt Harry, or anyone else for that matter (except maybe Malfoy). >I think Percy might be tempted for power in the ministry, >but ultimately I don't see him fall for it, either. I think the same thing applies to Percy as to Ron. I don't think he would knowingly do something that would be evil or that would be supportive of Voldemort, but he could be blinded by his ambition and not realize exactly what he's doing. Carol From heidit at netbox.com Wed Dec 11 19:00:11 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:00:11 -0000 Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: <20021211052438.96408.qmail@web14701.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48151 seaducer9 wrote: > All this talk of the Weasley's money trouble and how Ron handles it got me to thinking about which friend of Harry's might be turned. > > The first choice is Ron, since he *might* be lured into something > for money, albeit against his knowledge. I don't think so, Ron is a > pretty smart guy, just doesn't show in Harry's shadow as much. And gaby stevenson wrote a contrasting take on Ron, saying: > Ron is going to become evil. The path that he has seemed to choose > makes this clear. It isn't only his bitterness that makes him > more suspectible to this, but also the fact that he seems so > inclined to be "famous" and better than not only his brothers, > but Harry as well. > JK seems to be building this confrontation through the novels, > because each year Ron seems to loose some goodness within him and > he is growing darker as a being. I agree wholeheartedly that JKR is sketching a path for Ron that descends into places where nice boys should not go - I know I'm not the only one who liked Ron in books 1 - 3, but found his behaviour towards Harry and Hermione in book 4 troubling and frustrating. Even Ron's most ardent defenders must agree that he has a mean streak - it showed when he refused to accept Harry's explanations about the Cup, his treatment of Padma at the Ball, and both his fight with Hermione after the Ball, and his dismissal of her explanations about Harry earlier in the book. But besides all the canon examples of Ron's hostility, there's one canon issue which makes a potentially major impact on the likelihood of Ron choosing to embrace evil. His former pet. Yes, we all know that Ron let a Death Eater sleep in his bed for all of first and second years, and part of third year, but what did Scabbers do while he wasn't sleeping? Well, from PoA, there is a subtle implication that he didn't spend all his time as a rat - JKR pays particular attention to noting that Sirius' voice sounds unused, as if he'd spent more time as a dog than a person in recent years. But Sirius also says that he wasn't a dog all the time in Azkaban - he was certainly in human form when Fudge made his inspections. Pettigrew, however, was squeaky-voiced but otherwise, his voice didn't sound unused or neglected. Furthermore, isn't it possible that in the 4-6 years that he spent in the Weasley household, he changed back into a human on occasion? There were wands in the house - but almost more important than that, there were impressionable children. Consider the following scenario: Pettigrew joined the Weasley household in, say, early 1982 (give him 8 weeks or so to decide which family to crash into). Percy would've been somewhere between 6 and 7 at the time, and Ron would've been about 20 months. "Scabbers" became Percy's pet, we're led to believe from the Shack scene, at that point. This would've allowed Pettigrew to be in the Weasley household for about five years, until September, 1987, when Percy started Hogwarts (at which point he was home only over vacations). And in those five years, didn't he have many opportunities (and access to wands to assist) to put Ron under Imperio? Or engage in some other form of hypnosis, or a memory charm where Pettigrew wiped out the memory of himself as a human, but left the memories of the lessons he taught Ron about evil? Or even just transform back into his human self and play with the ickle kidling while his older brothers are out and about and his mum is preoccupied with the younger baby? And talk with him about power and money and all the wonderful things that one can do with such things. And explain to him that when he was old enough to go to Hogwarts, he should befriend Harry Potter, who would be in his year. Canon point - he *did* track Harry down on the train, and he *did*pretty much chase both Draco and Hermione out of the cabin to prevent them from getting between Harry and himself. In third year, he also drove a wedge between Harry and Hermione over the Crookshanks issues - it's not until Pettigrew's influence over Ron ends with the rat fleeing at the end of Book 3 that Ron has a real fight with Harry. Even in the trio's first year, while in Ron's pocket, he'd've heard from the trio about the Philosopher's Stone, and could've told Ron to help Harry get to the stone if the need arose - not under the precognitive presumption that Voldemort would need Harry's help, but more of a way of feeding Harry to the Dark Lord so the first thing he'd get to do when he was re-embodied would be to destroy the brat who de-corporeated him in the first place. It's clear from that Pettigrew had access to Ron during his formative years (with or without the assistence of a wand to help with memory charms and the like), and also just as clear that Pettigrew's voice didn't sound like it should have had he never transformed back into a human for 12+ years, at the end of PoA. Does this mean that he definitely influenced Ron's moral, ethical and emotional growth? No, but it's certainly a possibility, and it's certainly supported by canon. Heidi From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 19:44:36 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:44:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Creevey Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021211194436.67665.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48152 OK, so we all know that JKR does nothing without a good reason. And I think that the Creevey brothers may be important in a way, besides what has been discussed. OK, so obviously Colin was an important tool in the plot of CoS, but what the hell does Dennis add to this picture? His sorting is described in relative detail, and then he disappears from the plot, except for an occasional, "the Creevey brothers", and that is it. Ok, so yes maybe JKR is simply introducing a character that will have a bigger part in future books, but I think they make be more significant as a *precedence*, for Muggle-born wizarding siblings. There has been much discussion on the "genetics" of magic. Magical powers are obviously an inherited trait. With squibs being relative anomalies, and Muggle-born children being something of chance. So lets say that a Wizard-born child is a wizard because his parents were. And Muggle-born wizards are simply the luck of the draw. You could accept that, IF it were not for the Creevey brothers. Compare all the children born to Muggles in Britain, to the number of those children who turn out to be magical - it is an EXTREMELY small percentage. What is the chance that two brothers would happen to be part of that percentage. OK, so this may force us to see that magical ability is always "genetic" (and I say genetic, but I do not mean an actual piece of DNA, it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that this "magic gene"is outside science) I had the impression that the Creevey's father is a single-dad, so maybe one can argue that the absent mother is/was secretly a witch. But let's say that she was not, (canon: the Basilisk only attacked Mudbloods, not half-bloods like Seamus). Then we have to accept that somewhere along the line there was a Wizarding Creevey, but to both the Creeveys, and the wizarding world, they are completely muggle. So all this rambling DOES have a point, I promise. I think that the Creevey brothers are setting the precedent for Petunia Dursely being magical, and the Evans family having a magical ancestor. I have always felt that there must be somthing important in the Evans-bloodline, because there is such an emphasis put on Harry and Lily's green eyes (an INHERITED trait, and hints at something about Lily's blood). ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 20:31:24 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:31:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Three Paths/Snape,Draco, & Lucius/Neville's Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021211203124.17084.qmail@web14605.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48153 What I am about to post is not really anything new, but I have recently given this more clear thought. Obviously a HUGE theme that was set up at the end of GoF, was choices. And in Book 5, everyone will have to make the choice. I know that I have always been working under the assumption that the choice, is to support Voldemort, or not, but actually I think it is a bit more complex than that. As far as a can see, there are three paths to take in Book 5, all of which involve joining a particluar "camp" Voldemort's Camp I do not think that we will see many NEW Voldemort supporters in Book 5. The people who choose this camp will all be former DEs or LV-supporters, and in the new generation, the children of the DEs and LV-supporters. And obviously not ALL of them will come back (ex. Karkaroff). Dumbledore's Camp These are people who believe that LV has regained power and begin to ACTIVELY work against him. We know some who will be in the group: Hogwarts teachers, the "old crowd", the Trio, and the Weasleys. I think an interesting thing to watch here, will be to see how much DD's camp depends on the support of the younger generation. After all, the Hogwarts student body is very much "in-the-know"about the LV situation, and they are for the most part very influenced by DD and respect him. I see a a possibility of a generation-clash developing here. * all in all, I think that both LV and DD 's camps will be relatively SMALL in Book 5, because MOST people will be in: * Fudge's Camp Fudge will be less of an actual LEADER as opposed to DD an LV, but is definitely the stereotype of people who will CONSCIOUSLY choose this path (they refuse to believe, or refuse to act). Also, this camp will involve people who do not have much information, as the MoM is withholding info. When DD talks about the "easy way", I do not think he exclusively (or even mainly) means going the way of Dark Magic, as much as the people who choose to turn a blind eye. By Book 6 or 7, I do not think that the path to Fudge's camp will really be an option anymore, once LV really comes back onto the scene over the next year or two. But unfortunately, Fudge's attitude is what will let LV come back to full power. I think the choices important to watch in Book 5 are Percy's and Draco's. Will Percy defend the MoM, (which he does in GoF, even at his father's expense)? How will Snape and Draco's relationship change? I think any thought of Draco becoming buddy-buddy with the Trio are ridiculous, I think Draco's choice will be Snape or Lucius. And I think it will be a difficult one. By Book 5, L. Malfoy will know that Snape was a spy. Will he allow his son to continue being mentored by the person who betrayed his master? Also, Snape has always believed that Draco has great potential, and goes to great (and unfair) lengths to encourage and support him. Can the same be said for Lucius? Again, here is a developing theme of conflict in the generations. Also, one quick question, what is the consensus on Neville being the victim of a Memory Charm (akin to Bertha's) from the time of his parent's attack? ANGELA (who thinks way too much about this stuff, and is wondering if she should stop) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Dec 11 20:39:35 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:39:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Worldwide Ministry? was, Thoughts on Hagrid's wand Message-ID: <118.1c021092.2b28fc87@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48154 In a message dated 12/10/02 10:00:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, jazmyn at pacificpuma.com writes: > Yes, I can see the USDM being very bureaucratic and can see them making > sure they have wizards or witches placed in muggle government for ' > inteligence reasons '. One fan fic I read had the HP crew coming over > and taking out all the 'bad wizards' going over the heada of the local > wizarding governement. PLUS having the US Wizards asking for help from > the British MOM? What? The US asking for help in their internal > problems from ANYONE? The writer must OBVIOUSLY have been stoned > because Americans are too bloody proud to ask anyone for help, you > know I think wizards in the government would keep them informed. If most of them are like the Malfoys, they wouldn't have any knowledge of Muggle affairs and, like it or not, the worlds are linked. If someone bombs a country, the wizards will die as well as Muggles. I can't imagine that wizards could survive a nuclear/biological attack. ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ (Who was quite offended by the comments about the U.S. being "too bloody proud to ask anyone for help" and would like that listies try, if possible, to keep their polticial opinions/biases out of the HP world, as she does. Sorry if I offend anyone.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 21:18:12 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:18:12 -0000 Subject: The Trek of the MAGIC DISHWASHER (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48155 The Trek of the MAGIC DISHWASHER To the tune of The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald Hear the original at http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1970s.html#T Dedicated to Pip, Grey Wolf, Marina Frants (aka Mariner) and the authors of Hypothetic Alley: Tabouli, Elkins, Dicentra spectabilis, and Cindy C. (who made this filk much easier to write) http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html#md Post 39662 on HP4GU Though some said, "Hey, it sounds fishy to me" The theory we read prompted many a thread And made TBAY grow even more roomy Secret plots Dumbledore hatched to halt Voldemort That's the MAGIC DISHWASHER in essence Al said, "Pettigrew, let the dirty rat through, And Voldy goes into obsolescence" It started when Pip let a new theory rip And made Spy Game into a hard science Then the Wolf who is Grey leapt right into the fray With his metaphor of an appliance Since with TBAY the rule (if you want to be cool) Is to dub your theory with initials The Ancient Mariner had the wit to confer The acronym that's now official The Vaporized!Voldy kept on rattling around Dumbledore said, "Some day we must face him But when he returns let it be on my terms Then once and for all I'll erase him. We'll beat Voldemort in a shadowy war, Information our ultimate weapon. A bodyguard of lies will keep our Truths disguised On this outcome I shall stake my rep on! "Hagrid, once detained in the prison, explained Azkaban proved to be full of blabbers A rumor he heard (though it sounded absurd) That Pete Pettigrew lived on as Scabbers When Sirius escaped I made plans then with Snape A complex intricate agenda Pete, Harry & Black would all meet in the Shack With Harry to serve as Pete's defender "The plan may sound callous but there's no trace of malice Young Harry can deal with strife yet He shall use no curse, he'll show splendid mercy And place Pettigrew deeply in life-debt " So it more or less went, though Black was innocent. And poor Snape took a blow to his noggin But he still kept discrete on the exit of Pete And with Fudge indulged in some hot-doggin' Now Voldy with blood and with flesh and with bone Was revived with a poison-pill potion When a Potter blood-mix the Dark Lord made his fix, Dumble's eyes glowed with noble emotion. Now, will Smart!Voldemort battle `gainst Dumbledore? Will we next see a Spying Game sequel? Can we all get a link if we just metathink? Or just wait til in Book Five to peek well? In a scary safe house on a part of TBAY Where the silent conspirators hush her In a kitchen installed the appliance that's called Our grand theory the MAGIC DISHWASHER Post 39662 on HP4GU Though some said, "Hey, it sounds fishy to me" The theory we read prompted many a thread And made TBAY grow even more roomy - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm For a limited time only, hear another parody of this song, The Wreck of the Walter Fritz Mondale (scroll down to the bottom) http://www.capsteps.com From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 21:20:21 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:20:21 -0000 Subject: Wands with no spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dangermousehq at h... wrote: Alora says: >>> "Does that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some way? Telepathy, or something of the like?" >>> Dan says: >>> That's more or less what I think--eventually wizards and witches become so magically skilled they don't need to say the incantation part of certain spells anymore. I think of the incantation (alohomora, for example) as just being a word that triggers a desired effect in your brain, which, in turn, causes it to manifest in the real world. >>> I say: I really like this idea, it makes a lot of sense. But then why did Ron's levitating spell not work properly? Since we all know it's "Wing-GAR-dium levi-O-sa" not "wingardium levio-SA" =) I don't know if the words are totally useless, because what would be the point in them? If their only purpose is to "remind" the wizard of the spell, then it would be much more effective for the wizard to personailze the spells and use words they closely associated with the desired outcome. Which leads me into a new question. Where did magic COME from? It seems to be somewhat natural, as it can't be strictly "learned." (i.e. you're born magical or you're not) so it doesn't seem as if humans created it. So then how would they have discovered how to *use* it? And how to make and use wands? Well that's the end of my babbling -Laura From wynnde1 at aol.com Wed Dec 11 21:59:38 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:59:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape Message-ID: <55.334f1076.2b290f4a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48157 Maria asked, > And another question concerning Lupin: why does Snape hate him? As far as > the Prank goes, Sirius is the one to blame, since it was him who actually > told Snape where to go to find Lupin. Snape's hate of James is also > understandable. But I can't understand why Snape hates Lupin. We haven't > heard Snape say about Lupin's behavior to him. > > Does he just really, really detest werewolves? Or does he hate "James and > everyone who was friends with him" up to the point where the hatred is > blind? Or did something else happen that we don't know about? > > It's my opinion that Snape hated Lupin because for many years Snape believed Lupin *did* have had a part in the planning of the "prank." In the Shrieking Shack, Snape finds out that this belief was incorrect, and that Lupin was not in on the "prank" at all (from what we know in canon, it seems as though Sirius started it entirely by himself, telling no one else but James, who then ran in and saved Severus). So now Snape knows the truth - that Lupin wasn't at fault. But, being Snape, he is slow to let go of a grudge, which is (IMO) why he "outed" Lupin to the Slytherins, leading to Lupin's resignation. Of course, he might also feel that a werewolf who can't be trusted to take his potion every month is not an appropriate member of a boarding school teaching staff, and this was his way of making sure Lupin left. (Snape has a point there - Lupin did neglect to take his potion, and could have easily killed - or worse - a student. Even so, as I adore Lupin, I would have rather they found some other way around this - making sure he was locked away somewhere safe each month, for example). But, even though I adore Snape as well, I don't think his primary reason was the safety of the students in this case . I think he meant it as an attack on Lupin, for the many years' worth of resentment he'd held against him, even if it was based on a falsehood. I hope there will come a time when Snape will be able to let go of this and perhaps he and Lupin will be able to be civil to one another (friendship may be asking a bit much ). Now he knows that he doesn't really have any reason to resent Lupin, I'm hoping his resentment will wear off eventually. Lupin strikes me as the sort of person who would be happy to let bygones be bygones with Snape, and offer his hand in friendship if an opportunity arose. :-) Wendy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gandharvika at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 22:28:22 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:28:22 +0000 Subject: (FILK) Snape's Grudge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48158 Snape's Grudge (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Javert's Suicide_ from the musical Les Miserables) Dedicated to Melody And the Schuylkill Library in Philadelphia for having such an amazing collection of CDs on loan. Snape: That Sirius Black Thought he was being funny He sent me down to a trap And Potter had to save me A highly amusing joke That would have ended in death Had not Potter Pulled me out from the depths Lupin was there A werewolf at the Shack Their stupid prank At the last moment, brought back Damn it, I have a life debt to Potter Damn it, I have this hanging over my head I'm not a fool and I shall not be mocked Would have been better had he left me for dead There's been nothing but hostility It has always been him versus me! How can I now repay this man Of this life debt that I owe? This arrogant man whom I have hated He saved my life but he died long ago Potter was killed by Voldemort By the Dark Lord By the Dark Lord I once served well He is now dead, I live in hell Now many years later Potter's young son, Harry He's so much like his father The resemblance, uncanny When I look at this Potter boy Reminded after all these years My heart is hard and yet I still need To make this life debt somehow disappear At the Quidditch game Harry played He did not know I was saving his life that day >From the hex of Professor Quirrell I try to let go but I can't And my hate grows more and more As I try to protect him As I try to settle the score I'll be released now from this debt >From this debt of James Potter Then I'll finally be at peace Then maybe it will be over... -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From bobafett at harbornet.com Wed Dec 11 19:00:40 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:00:40 -0800 Subject: Theory on the Death in book 5? Message-ID: <001001c2a147$9b6606a0$58edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48159 Theory Acording to Mugglenet.com Book 5 (The Brotherhood of The Phoenix) will be the death of someone significant. In their facts area it states, And i quote " a.. One of the main characters, one of Harry's "fans" will die (not Ron or Hermione though). The death will be "horrible to write." (Can be found at http://www.mugglenet.com/facts.shtml) There were a few things about this statement that chimed in my head while browsing the Lexicon. (The Harry potter Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/) The fact that one of harrys "FANS" will die and it will/was "horrible to write" rang out to me while reading the who's who in the wizarding section of the site, in particular the L-N section of the master list where it mentions McDonald, Natalie, Gryffindor, 94-01. (ref. http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/wizards-l-n.html) Here it states, and i quote, "McDonald, Natalie Gryffindor, 94-01 Natalie's name comes from a Canadian girl who was very sick. She loved the Harry Potter books and contacted JKR. The author wrote her and told her her some of the secrets of the books to come, but Natalie had died by the time the letter arrived. Natalie's mother responded and she and JKR have since become friends. Jo put Natalie in GF, sorted into Gryffindor, as a tribute. (story originally appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail) " So I concluded that considering both these sorces reliable and the facts displayed acurat i would say that Natlie McDonald would be a "FAN" and her Death would be "Horrible to write". But perhaps she is to sacrifice herself for the greater good, or to save her true love (Harry James Potter). Regardless this is just a plausable theory and i would like to see what other people think of it thnx BoBaFeTT P.S. Dumbledore stated Harry's and Volde's wands where brothers due to the fact they share the feather's from the same phoenix, so it would make sence to me if "The Brotherhood Of The Phoenix" was refering to the relationship between harry and volde. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bobafett at harbornet.com Wed Dec 11 20:53:27 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:53:27 -0800 Subject: Theory on why harry had to go home (end book 4) Message-ID: <000f01c2a157$5cde62a0$58edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48160 Why? Why Did Dubledore Insist Harry Go Back Home To The Dursley's? Well, aside from the basic fact he's protected there, it seemed to me there was more than that in Dumbledore's comment when in GoF he told Mrs. Weasley that Harry must go back to the Dursley's, at least at first. It makes me think more about what exactly the situation is there and then like before something blinked in the minuscule thing I call my mind. What if they reveal info to him? Now, don't get ahead of me here I'm not thinking about info on his family but more to the fact why they are so cruel to him. What if the Dursleys aren't muggles at all; what if the reason they are so mean to Harry is because HE and NOT their little Duddy is a warlock! What if Mr. and Mrs. Dursley are wizards and Dudley was born a Muggle. This would be a plausible explanation why they abused Harry all these years, The jealousy of Harry being a wizard and not Dudley could have driven them to this. thnx BoBaFeTT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From squireandknight at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 23:01:48 2002 From: squireandknight at yahoo.com (Becky ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:01:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione's birthday In-Reply-To: <14.4475f00.2b286df2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48161 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnde1 at a... wrote: > > > patchespup100 at a... asked: > Now me: > It's not like that in Scotland, however, at least not where I live (in East > Lothian, near Edinburgh). I'm not sure what the exact cut-off date is > (sometime in December, I think), Although if it is, then we already know Hogwarts doesn't follow that, because Cedric was a seventeen-year-old 6th year by October 31st. Although Dumbledore's comment to Harry and Hermione > in chapter 21 of PoA (that no one would believe the word of two > thirteen-year-old wizards), leads me to believe that they were both thirteen > at that time, which means Hermione would have had to have started at Hogwarts > before her 11th birthday. Well, maybe. But then I could also take it to imply that Hermione is secretly male. > > :-) > Wendy Becky From cid62 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 15:12:59 2002 From: cid62 at yahoo.com (Cindy ) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:12:59 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on possible US Wizarding culture, was Worldwide Ministry In-Reply-To: <3DF6950A.2F2D2414@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48162 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jazmyn wrote: > I called it the United States Department of Magic myself as most US gov > 'departments' start with United States and rarely if ever, American. ie > United States Department or Agriculture, etc. Well, actually I did, too, I just wasn't specific in my posting. Blame it on the lack of coffee. ;-) ;-) In fact, the FBI having a > secret group of aurors that even the muggle President doesn't know > about, which uses both magic and FBI information resources, while > appearing to be muggles. They 'pridicted' the 9-11 terrorist attack, > but noone would believe them and another (muggle run) dept took credit > for their work anyways. However, I never can finish a story to a point > where I would post it anywhere. ;) That's a shame, as I like that idea. I posited the NYAF (New York Auror Force) and the Dept. of Magic's Central Auror Division (which is much like the group you describe above). > Also proposed there were three major Magic Colleges in the US. One in > Salem, MA, One in San Francisco, CA and one in Austin, TX Yep--as all are, IRL, major centers of neo-Pagan activity. > > Yes, I can see the USDM being very bureaucratic and can see them making > sure they have wizards or witches placed in muggle government for ' > inteligence reasons '. One fan fic I read had the HP crew coming over > and taking out all the 'bad wizards' going over the heada of the local > wizarding governement. PLUS having the US Wizards asking for help from > the British MOM? What? The US asking for help in their internal > problems from ANYONE? The writer must OBVIOUSLY have been stoned > because Americans are too bloody proud to ask anyone for help, you > know. Well, having once worked for a government contracting firm, I can say that the US government does, in fact, outsource many things. ;-) In my fic, I had a certain wizard from the Committee for Disposal of Dangerous Creatures get asked over, as a consultant, to help his US counterparts from time to time. I think it depends on the problem. I would also suspect that there are a LOT more wizards and > witches in the US, due to larger overall population and the 'melting > pot' ideals of the US, meaning more wizards getting involved with > muggles (and giants, house elves, anything breathing). One could only > imagine what the 60's were like to the USA's Wizarding World? Oooo.. > boy. "Man, I'm so stoned. Is that a centaur your girlfriend is with? > Groovy.." (the mind boggles) ROFL!!!! ;-) > Another thing though, I can see magic being regulated in the US not so > much at the federal level as the state level. ie. It may be illegal to > turn someone into a ferret in California, but not Texas. ;) Hmmm. Hence a possible defense for Professor "Moody's" actions in GOF could have been: "He needed ferretin'"? ;-) ;-) ;-) Cheers, Cindy MOD NOTE: This thread is becoming off topic. Please send replies to Cindy directly or transfer the thread to OTChatter. Thanks Merry Elf for the Magical Moderators From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Wed Dec 11 23:50:43 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:50:43 -0700 (MST) Subject: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48163 > From: "behold_smiodan " > > Just a thought, and I'm sorry if it already been discussed, but how do > they know how many student there will be? I mean, from cannon we *know* > (well we think we do....) that only 10 kids per house get admitted so, > how do they know that exactly 40 students will be coming to Hogwarts and > that exactly 10 of them will be in each house, 5 boys, 5 girls? What > happens if 9 boys end up in Slytherin or 15 kids manage to make the > Hufflepuffs any other house? Actually, all we know from canon is that ten students were accepted into Gryffindor House during Harry's first year (and even that is a bit of an estimation, as there *could* be more than two unnamed Gryffindor girls along with Hermione, Parvati, and Lavender). There's no reason to assume that that's a set limit on the number of students that could be accepted. There's no way for anyone at Hogwarts to know which first years are going to be in which houses until the Sorting Hat has had its say; but given that it's a magical castle whose staircases rearrange themselves, I imagine that they don't have to know far in advance in order to prepare. Magic makes some things very handy. This is something that's often bothered me about the great "How many students are there at Hogwarts?" argument. JKR's said in interviews that there are about a thousand people at Hogwarts. But we know that only five boys were sorted into Gryffindor during Harry's first year, which leads us to assume that there were about forty first years (ten boys and girls, four houses) sorted at that time, and therefore about two hundred and eighty (forty kids per year times seven years) students at Hogwarts altogether, which is significantly less than a thousand, yadda yadda. So are there a thousand students at Hogwarts or three hundred? I haven't seen this argument yet in here, but I'd be astonished if it's never come up; I've run into it everywhere else. My problem is that we tend to use the number of male students in Harry's year as a basis for further estimation, but it's entirely possible that it's an unusual number. Perhaps there were just less people sorted into Gryffindor during that particular year; where's the fuss? For all we know there were thirty boys sorted into Gryffindor the previous year, or twenty Ravenclaws and forty Hufflepuffs sorted into their respective houses while only five boys were sorted into Gryffindor. We don't have all the information, and an estimation based on that one single fact is not likely to be accurate. It's also entirely possible that the number of students at Hogwarts in Harry's time is smaller than usual, given that a large number of witches and wizards were killed during Voldemort's years of power, which would lead to less children. Perhaps witches and wizards even emigrated to other countries during that time; Voldemort certainly had a lot of influence, as evidenced by Karkaroff at least, but his main sphere of power and control seems to have been in Britain. I imagine a lot of people fled the country to escape from him. Any other thoughts on this? Ashfae From heidit at netbox.com Thu Dec 12 00:06:59 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:06:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's birthday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48164 Becky wrote: **Although if it is, then we already know Hogwarts doesn't follow that, because Cedric was a seventeen-year-old 6th year by October 31st.** Without anything other than Angelina and Hermione's birthdays to base this on, I could argue that Hogwarts, predating the modern British school system by a few hundred years as it does, uses the Fall Equinox in late September as its cutoff date. It would enable Angelina to be 17 at that point in her 6th year - and cedric as well - while placing Hermione's birthday 6 weeks after Harry's. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 23:47:28 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Theory on why harry had to go home (end book 4) In-Reply-To: <000f01c2a157$5cde62a0$58edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <20021211234729.54727.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48165 BoBaFeTT wrote: ME: Sorry, I just cannot buy this. Though I am a FIRM FIRM FIRM believer that Petunia Dursley is eaither a almost/latent/failed witch, or slightly magical, or at least has a magical ancestor. But Vernon? No way! If they were a wizarding couple, and prided themselves on magic so much that their sun Dudley's squibness could lead them to cruelty to their nephew, why would they choose to live VERY VERY much like Muggles? ME: This is actually quite interesting. I am really intrigued! I think we have all come to realize that the Dursleys must know more than they have told Harry (practically nothing), and that they must play a bigger and more varied part in future books. There may have been more in that letter from DD than, "Harry's parents were killed by an evil wizard, etc etc". And obviously, despite estrangement, they must have info on James and Lily, especially about the Evans family background. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Dec 12 00:47:34 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:47:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48166 > From: Ashfae [mailto:ashfae at technicaldetails.org] > Actually, all we know from canon is that ten students were > accepted into Gryffindor House during Harry's first year (and even that is > a bit of an estimation, as there *could* be more than two unnamed > Gryffindor girls along with Hermione, Parvati, and Lavender). I don't believe that we can accept your statement as true. If I'm not mistaken, which I often am, we can only assume that in Harry's class in Gryffindor, there are *at least* the 5 boys that share the same dorm room and *at least* 3 girls. There are lots of Gryffindors that are never named, and I see no reason that some of the never-named Gryffindors belong to Harry's class. Suzanne, who always tries to believe that what JKR says is true, mostly From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 00:05:27 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:05:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021212000527.29801.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48167 I have a hard time rationalizing this topic, and I know everyone does, and I know it has been done to death. But I think it will always be done to death, because we HAVE to figure it out. Anyway, I think the concept that Harry's generation is a little light because of Voldemort's reign of terror is interesting. I mean we really do not know how many people LV and his followers killed, though I find it hard to imagine that it was so many that it significantly changed the population number. Ok, but say you COULD rationalize the numbers by saying the that Harry's year of Gryffindors and Slytherins were pure anomalies. What I can't get over is the sheer size of first-year classes, if 1,000 is the correct figure. We are talking average classes of 70 students. Okay, it is possible, not unheard of at the university level. But take into account that there can be such extreme fluctations in class numbers, that Gryffindor could have ten students one year, down from an average of 35, and you are dealing with a range of "double" classes from 20 to 130+ students per class. ANGELA (who HATES this issue, but has bits of paper with scribbled calculations littering her floor) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 00:02:28 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:02:28 -0000 Subject: Neville just can't! (Re: Which friend?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48168 Janet Anderson wrote: (naysaying the possibility that Neville will go over to the dark side) Consider, after all, whose child he is. Isn't it likely that Neville has > inherited *some* of the characteristics of a top-flight Auror and his wife > who were strong enough not to break under torture? And also that he'd find > the strength somewhere not to disgrace the memory of his parents? (Remember > what his grandmother said about "upholding the family honor.") > Janet Anderson I'm inclined to agree. I admit to being a shameless Neville fan, and therefore biased. But I can't see him turning to those who were responsible for what happened to his parents. I think he just might be an example of how history doesn't have to repeat itself--Pettigrew was weak and fell to Voldemort, but Neville stays strong. At least, I hope he does. The one thing I can see influencing him to do bad things, IMHO, is not lust for power or anything like that, but loneliness. I'd like to see the Trio respect him more (OK, Hermione already seems to), so that he has some support rather than feeling he's all alone in the world. It isn't easy being sort of the class joke. Strix From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 12 01:10:30 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:10:30 -0000 Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy " wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly that JKR is sketching a path for Ron that > descends into places where nice boys should not go - I know I'm not > the only one who liked Ron in books 1 - 3, but found his behaviour > towards Harry and Hermione in book 4 troubling and frustrating. Even > Ron's most ardent defenders must agree that he has a mean streak - > it showed when he refused to accept Harry's explanations about the > Cup, his treatment of Padma at the Ball, and both his fight with > Hermione after the Ball, and his dismissal of her explanations about > Harry earlier in the book. But besides all the canon examples of > Ron's hostility, there's one canon issue which makes a potentially > major impact on the likelihood of Ron choosing to embrace evil. > > His former pet. I have to admit, I really like that notion. It's eeeevil, it's got canon, and it's the sort of thing I can see Pettigrew doing. I still don't see Ron deliberately embracing evil, but I can imagine a sort of a "Manchurian Candidate" scenario, with Pettigrew planting ideas in his mind and then hiding them behind memory charms and appropriate triggers. Pettigrew, for all his snivelling, is cunning, resourceful, and very good at manipulating people when he's not having a crisis of nerves. He could pull it off if he really put his mind to it. The question is, would he plan so far ahead? Pettigrew strikes me as more of a tactitian than a strategist. He can come up with clever plans on the fly in response to specific situations -- framing Sirius, bringing Bertha Jorkins to Voldemort. But I'm not sure if he'd plan years in advance like that. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 12 00:49:29 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:49:29 -0000 Subject: FILK: Tradition Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48170 I've been surfing the web in search of tunes to filk, and I came across the libretto of Fiddler on the Roof, which is just chock full of suitable songs. Here's one to start off: TRADITION to the tune of "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof SCENE: The Great Hall at Hogwarts. Students and teachers serenade the honorable tradition of the four Houses. STUDENTS AND TEACHERS: Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! SLYTHERINS: Who, day and night, is a-plotting and a-scheming, A-lying and a-cheating, playing dirty tricks? Who uses ends to justify the means, And can't be trusted worth a damn? Slytherins! Slytherins! Tradition! Slytherins! Slytherins! Tradition! GRYFFINDORS: Who's not afraid to risk their life and limb? To fight the fight! To face the foe! Who's always honorable and chivalrous, If not exactly sensible and smart? Gryffindors! Gryffindors! Tradition! Gryffindors! Gryffindors! Tradition! RAVENCLAWS: At three I learned to read and write, at ten I was casting spells. I hear there's an exam today. I hope I do well. Ravenclaws! Ravenclaws! Tradition! Ravenclaws! Ravenclaws! Tradition! HUFFLEPUFFS: And who can be relied on to do the hardest work? Our House is just and loyal, don't treat us like we're dorks! Hufflepuffs! Hufflepuffs! Tradition! Hufflepuffs! Hufflepuffs! Tradition! Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 23:53:12 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:53:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Theory on the Death in book 5? In-Reply-To: <001001c2a147$9b6606a0$58edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <20021211235312.88656.qmail@web14605.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48171 BoBaFeTT wrote: Here it states, and i quote, "McDonald, Natalie Gryffindor, 94-01 Natalie's name comes from a Canadian girl who was very sick. She loved the Harry Potter books and contacted JKR. The author wrote her and told her her some of the secrets of the books to come, but Natalie had died by the time the letter arrived. Natalie's mother responded and she and JKR have since become friends. Jo put Natalie in GF, sorted into Gryffindor, as a tribute. So I concluded that considering both these sorces reliable and the facts displayed acurat i would say that Natlie McDonald would be a "FAN" and her Death would be "Horrible to write". > ME: i find this HIGHLY unlikely for two reasons 1) these plot line of all seven books has been basically planned out for years. the addition of the name Natalie MacDonald while writing GoF, does not mean the addition of a character and a related plot line that would completely change everything she had worked out 2) i think it was a wonderful tribute. but the thought of killing off this deceased little girl's namesake, is a little sick frankly are you being serious? or am i missing the joke? i don't mean that as an insult, just sometimes i can be a bit clueless. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 01:52:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:52:14 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum " wrote: > Darla wrote: > > > There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of > > money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several > > occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), > >why > > did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? > > I didn't see it as blowing the money on a just-for-fun vacation. If > I remember correctly (sorry, no books at my disposal), they traveled > in order to see Bill, whom they hadn't see in two or three years. > Why waste the money on luxury items that the family has done > perfectly well without if they can see their oldest son, and get a > vacation in the process? > > -Corinth bboy_mn comments: I'm inclinded to agree with Corinth, spending the money on a vaction to visit their son and to give the kids an experience that they would remember for a lifetime is hardly 'blowing it'. They Weasleys get by just fine on their adequate but modest income. Many many people of all financial states would take a windfall like this and spend it on something very special rather than factor it into their, as I said, modest but adequate income. They didn't just hold on to it and let in nickle and dime away until it was gone, the did something which to them was spectacular. A once in a lifetime opportunity to give their kids something big, special, and memorable. It may not have been the most finacially sound choice, but by much deeper more heartfelt standards I feel it was the better choice. Now a related but slightly different subject. As I have said many times before, I think most people have misinterpreted the problems between Ron and Harry in GoF and thier causes. Of course, Ron doesn't like to be poor, I've been poor, I am poor, and believe me I don't like it, but that doesn't mean I'll rat out my friends for money. Through the first (approx) half of Gof, Ron PRIMARY problem is that he felt betrayed by Harry, not jealous of his fame. The full discussion and analysis of this starts at msg# 43801. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43801 It's true that Hermione said Ron was jealous, but the only conversation where Ron gets to speak for himself reveals different feeling if you analyse it objectively. It reveals that Ron felt like his friendship had been betrayed. So, if the is foreshadowing, it will be in Ron feeling deeply betrayed by Harry again, and these circumstances will open Ron up to manipulation by other people. But I don't think for a second that Ron will ever really truly go over to the dark side. He will go through a period where his judgement may be clouded by emotion, and there for easy to manipulate, but when it gets right down to it, Ron will return to his true nature. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 12 02:34:11 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:34:11 -0000 Subject: FILK: If I Were a Wizard Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48173 If I Were a Wizard To the tune of "If I Were a Rich Man" from Fiddler on the Roof. SCENE: Having enrolled in a Kwikspell course, Argus Filch fantasizes about the joys of being a wizard. FILCH: I realize, of course, that's it's no shame to be a Squib. But it's no great honor, either. So what would've been so terrible if I had a little magic? If I were a wizard, Alohamora-mora-mora-mora-diddle-dum! All day long I'd Reparo-paro-pum, If I was a magic man. Wouldn't have to scrub floors. Leviosa-osa-osa-diddle-dum! If I was a biddy-biddy wiz, Reparo-paro magic man. I'd build a great big tower with bars on the windows Right in the middle of the school, With thick stone walls and a nasty dungeon full of rats There would be cold dark cells where I could lock up All the snotty little kids who break the rules, And a torture chamber for the Weasley brats. I'd cast a spell to turn bad children into furry mice For my little cat to chase. No one would misbehave again, at least not twice, I'd teach them all to know their place! They'd respect me if I were a magic man. If I were a wizard, Expelliarmus-armus-armus-diddle-dum! All day long I'd Reparo-paro-pum, If I was a magic man. Wouldn't have to scrub floors. Serpensortia-tia-tia-diddle-dum! If I was a biddy-biddy wiz, Reparo-paro magic man. I see my cat, Mrs. Norris, being my familiar, With her soft and silky fur, Sleeping on a velvet cushion by the fire. I see her playing in her own catnip garden, Then curling up in my lap to purr. To what more can a wizard's cat aspire? The big shots from the Ministry would come to fawn on me! They would ask me to advise them, As if I was Dumbledore. "If you please, Mr. Filch " "Pardon me, Mr. Filch " Bowing low to me and groveling on the floor! And it won't make one bit of difference what I do or what I say, When you're a wizard they assume you're always right. If I were magic, I could do what I want, I would cast a new spell every day. I'd dine at the staff table in the Great Hall, And tell the professors `bout the spells I've cast, And they would nod their heads and say, That I'm the greatest wizard of them all. If I were a wizard, Alohamora-mora-mora-mora-diddle-dum! All day long I'd Reparo-paro-pum, If I was a magic man. Wouldn't have to scrub floors. Leviosa-osa-osa-diddle-dum! If I was a biddy-biddy wiz, Reparo-paro magic man. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 02:20:07 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:20:07 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: <00f301c2a0b1$710677a0$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, seaducer9 wrote: > > ...edited.... > > That leaves me with the Creevey's. They idolize Harry, who pretty much ignores them, even avoids them. Not too much has been written about them yet, but if anyone close to Harry is turned, my money is on them. > > One question though, about the Unforgivable Curses, all the students except Harry fell to the Imperious Curse. Does that just "turn off", or could those students be brought back under the spell at any time? > > Drew Z. bboy_mn adds: Only one small flaw in the Creevey scenario.... Why? Why would one of the Creevey brothers betray Harry? The only reason I can think of is if Harry was somehow involved in the death of the other Creevey brother. Certainly Colin sees Harry as a hero, the champion of all wizards, the only wizard to consistently and repeatedly defeat the most undefeatable wizard in existance; Voldemort. So, Colin would ask himself, if Harry can defeat Voldemort again and again, how come he couldn't save my brother? Maybe he's not the wizard I thought he was. This give a a death that is difficult to write, a very sad and tragic story, a betray of Harry, and a great deal of heartache for Harry. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 12 02:12:03 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:12:03 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Darla " wrote: > There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several > occasions (i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? << They'd just been through a horrible, horrible experience. Their youngest child was possessed by the most evil dark wizard in a hundred years, and none of them, none of them realized what was happening. Imagine the guilt. The prize money must have seemed like a blessing from heaven. I'm sure they felt a huge desire to get away, bond again as a family, escape being questioned by well-meaning friends, etc. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 12 02:27:50 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:27:50 -0000 Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy " wrote: > It's clear from that Pettigrew had access to Ron during his > formative years (with or without the assistence of a wand to help > with memory charms and the like), and also just as clear that > Pettigrew's voice didn't sound like it should have had he never > transformed back into a human for 12+ years, at the end of PoA. Sirius sounds like a dog, doesn't he? He barks and growls a lot, IIRC. And Pettigrew squeaks. Both of them sound like their animals. I think Sirius' greater rustiness with conversation is due to the fact that Peter was at least around normal voices most of the time. He could listen in on conversations even if he was in no shape to participate. Sirius didn't have anyone to listen to but his own memories playing over and over and Death Eaters screaming in their sleep. As for Pettigrew...if he was afraid to strike at Harry for fear of Albus Dumbledore, do you really think he had the guts to hang around a wizard residence putting Unforgiveable Curses on a child? And if so, wouldn't Draco Malfoy have suited him better? Pippin From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Dec 12 04:07:00 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:07:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Religion/ Magic without wands References: Message-ID: <00e701c2a193$ec5dcd30$dd9ccdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 48177 Richelle wrote: >I am currently reading the book "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" by >Connie Neal, >which goes through all four books and pulls out examples of >what may or may not be >Christian symbolism. Shane responded: > That sounds fascinating. Who is it published by? Westminster John Knox Publisher. The author, Connie Neal, is the same person who wrote the "What's a Christian to Do With Harry Potter?" book, a sort of response to all the "anti-Harry Potter" books by Christian authors who were claiming it was Satanic and so on. She is frequently interviewed on Christian radio shows and often enlightens the hosts who were led to believe (by those writing anti-HP books) negative things about HP. For example, she gives the instance when a radio host asked her how she could support HP when the theme of the books was "There is no good and evil, only power and those to weak to seek it." Naturally she was able to quickly explain that one away, as the one saying it was in fact evil and met his end very soon. > nations, and Christian cultural attitudes have pervaded, even for people who > are atheistic or non-practicing. This does not mean that Hogwarts is > moderately Christian. JKR is very different from other fantasy writers (C S > Lewis, JRR Tolkien, William Horwood) who make religion a very explicit part > of their mythos. With JKR I do believe that its *there*, its just deeply > buried. I agree. Although I must say the first time I read CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia (keep in mind I was really young, six or seven, so I guess it wasn't just being dense, but young) I totally missed the Christian connections. Then again, I missed them (at least some of them) in Harry Potter as well. Obviously some are jumping out, like Lily's sacrifice to save Harry. I am still not certain the symbolisms are intentional, but I must admit if they aren't intentional, it's a very big coincidence. And I'm not much on coincidences, so I'm pretty much convinced it's intentional. To an extent, at least. As far as the Gospel According to HP book, it's divided into four sections, one for each book, and I'm through the first two sections, about to begin PoA. I'd love to post on this, but where? Can someone let me know for sure if it belongs here or in OT-Chatter. I mean, it's off topic in the sense that it's bringing a great deal of religion into it, but it's on topic in the sense that it's all directly related to various parts throughout the books. Help! Also, one more thought I had on the magic without a wand issue. Someone mentioned Ron's "Wingardium Leviosa/Leviosar" incident in SS/PS. The key there should be that a) Ron's wand (which wasn't even intended to be his wand at all) wasn't familiar with him and couldn't "read his mind." b) Ron was so intent on saying the incantation that he wasn't thinking much of the results. Then when he was using the spell in the troll incident his mind was completely focused on what he wanted done. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 03:17:49 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:17:49 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48178 Hi all. Now I may be just a little too melancholy this evening, or I may be misunderstanding the text, but I have a thematic problem with Harry Potter. An inconsistency possibly. And it all revolves around the concept of "seeking". We all know the creed of Voldemort proclaimed by Quirrell in the mirror room. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those to weak to seek it." (PS/SS Ch 17) The key to this statement is the word "seek". Why is it that word changes everything? A basic non-Potter view of seeking is...wait let me find the dictionary..."to try and obtain." Nothing wrong with that, is there? We all seek our breakfast every morning. And yet, the HP series bad guy creed seems to imply that seeking is wrong. My question is what is the definition of "seeking" in HP text? The act of seeking in the creed brings dishonor to the intentions behind the action. After all, there is nothing wrong with power. Power can be abused but that is always possible whether the person receiving the power by seeking it or not. So then, the whole problem with Voldemort seems to be that he seeks when he should just be given. This view of Quirrell's statement is held up later with the introduction of Crouch Sr. He sought after power and wanted to achieve greatness. He is presented to the reader as someone who desired a bit too much and brought on his own downfall because of it. Not that the power he was desiring to achieve was wrong, but the fact he *sought* it. Oh his mind was bent on it. It consumed him. It drove his to focus on little else, and yet it is presented that if he was truly the one for the job, he should of just performed his job honorably and waited for the public to recognize whether he is worthy for the job. That he is the one to have such power bestowed on him. But, Crouch Sr. desired the privilege to be MoM. He deeply wanted to be so revered. He wanted it so much that he sought after the title. He did all he could to show the public that *he* was worthy of that job. That seems to be the definition of HP "seeking." That it is presented to be wrong in this series by JKR. Want another example? Sirius also is presented as seeking for Harry. He was so driven it consumed a whole year of his life. Yes, later we learn that Sirius was actually driven to protect Harry, but his seeking was painted as not an honorable affair even when we discover that he was truly after Peter. Dumbledore told Harry, "Sirius has not acted like an innocent man." (PoA, Ch 21) His act of seeking was not a good thing. Even if the truth behind *why* he acted that way was told to the public, it is implied that they would find his method of achieving his goal as not honorable. And what did he do? He sought. Yes both examples turned aside their life and focused on this one goal, which caused their downfallen status, but I do not think that is *always* implied in the text. My problem with the "seeking is bad" viewpoint that I think is presented clearly in this series is: Our little hero is a *Seeker*. He plays a game where his whole purpose is to have complete tunnel vision for one individual object that is hard to catch. Hmmm, see any parallels? So I wonder, why is it that it is all right for *Harry* to seek, but not anyone else? Why is it that he is being taught it is perfectly fine to seek after a single goal so intensely, and yet it is not all right for Voldemort or Crouch Sr. to do such a thing? After all what is so different from a snitch and power? Both bring the capturer a lot of fame and accolades. Both have a lot of pressure attached. Both can only be singularly possessed and is achieved against an opponent [well in *most* political systems. No, actually it should be *all* political systems because you can always murder a dictator, but I digress in my footnote...]. So I ask, is this inconsistent? Is the problem supposed to be the act of seeking on Voldemort's and Crouch Sr.'s behalf, or is it that they went *too* far in their seeking? And if the answer is that 'they went too far', then please explain why it is ok for Harry? Is there is a limit to how far one should go in seeking power? One should not, say, break their arm for a silly thing like power? And yet, the creed does not say that. It is the *seeking* that is bad. It is the seeking that taints well-meaning people. Please show me where my logic is wrong. This greatly bothers me. Is the act of seeking shown as wrong in the series? Melody From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 05:22:37 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:22:37 -0000 Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < rusalka at i...> wrote: > Pettigrew, for all his snivelling, is > cunning, resourceful, and very good at manipulating people when he's > not having a crisis of nerves. I don't agree. What events from the story make you come to this conclusion? CK From editor at texas.net Thu Dec 12 05:21:36 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:21:36 -0600 Subject: Thoughts on Snape in PoA, & What Snape Knew Re-Post, was Snape and the Shrieking Shack References: Message-ID: <008c01c2a19e$5b6d7540$0a05a6d8@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48180 I am talking about Snape = this is extremely long. pickle jimmy said: > I was reading (again :-P) the shrieking shack chapter of PoA and was > astounded at the length of time Snape was actually in the room and > the amount of the conversation he over-heard before revealing himself. > > Lupin goes through the whole "Black trying to get Snape eaten by a > Werewolf" story, how Snape was jealous of James, how James saved > Snape's live *and* he also reveals that He and his friends created > the Mauraders map (that earlier he had lied about to Snape when the > map was found in Harry's possesion). > > So, now my point: Read the "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" > chapter of PoA and put yourself in Snapes shoes. Then see how long > you could have remained silent for before tearing of the invisibility > cloak and yelling "Ha Haaa, I knew it!!!" (you oldies *knew* this was coming, didn't you...?) Snape did not hear the part about the Marauders creating the map. He does hear Lupin identifying their aliases. However, he does not hear what their animagus forms were. Before, for the general amusement of the masses, I reproduce yet again my only truly noteworthy post, I will briefly share my thoughts on Snape and the aliases: I believe Snape is very, very familiar with the names Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs. With an invisibility cloak and the Map at their disposal, many unpleasant and amusing tricks could have been played on Snape under those names. I do not, however, think that he knows who they actually *were.* Hence his apparent total lack of suspicion of Lupin when he consults him on the map. I get no feeling from Snape in that scene, that he suspects that Lupin *was* one of those names; just Snape's usual dislike/distrust of Lupin in general. Snape recognizes the names as dangerous and/or Really Bad Influences for Harry to be messing with, at a very bad time, but I think that's about it at that point in the story. So yes, when Snape hears Lupin revealing that his old enemies were those aliases, if it is true that things were done to him by the Marauders as I explained, he would suddenly have had a fusion of old hatreds, as it were. His hatred of the Marauders would suddenly have been augmented, and may help to explain two things I find compelling about the Shrieking Shack scene: (a) that Snape so completely loses it (I don't mean the way he does at the end of PoA, shrieking; I mean he seems near-mad in his refusal to entertain anyone's versions or thoughts, in his certainty; and (b) that he completely dismisses, to the point of not even seeming to hear or register, something Lupin says, which should have struck a chord in Snape. Lupin's explanation of his failure to tell Dumbledore that his friends had become animagi, because "Dumbledore's trust has meant everything." I suspect that to Snape, as well, Dumbledore's trust has meant everything, and here is another. [This non-reaction of Snape's, I suppose, can actually be taken two ways--either that his fury makes him completely miss this point, and this opportunity to understand and possibly partially forgive Lupin (who he also hears was actually blameless in the Prank), OR he does make this identification, recognizes it, and violently rejects it.] It is also eminently possible that Snape, whether or not tricks were played on him by the Marauders under their map aliases, recognizes at least one name from the map when he reads it in his office, and not from school days: Wormtail. We have seen subsequently that Voldemort refers to Pettigrew as Wormtail. It may be a derogatory recent usage, mocking the years he spent as a rat, but there is a possibility that Voldemort *always* called him by that name--a handy alias for Pettigrew to use, as it was entirely unknown by any save the other Marauders, who were unlikely to either share it or hear it from DeathEaters. I think it likely that DEs did not know each other's identities; so if Snape had heard "Wormtail" referred to by Voldemort in the past, he likely still not know it meant Pettigrew (for if he was the spy that warned the Potters, he would then have warned them correctly). BUT to have Harry Potter, the boy with the target on his back, to turn up in possession of a map clearly associated with someone Snape knows to have been a DE would *definitely* have made the alarm bells go off, prompting the call to Lupin, DADA person. If *this* scenario is true, it would *also* help explain Snape's vehemence in the Shack--because there stands Lupin beside Sirius Black, whom Snape quite honestly believes to be a murderer and turncoat, and then Lupin reveals their aliases, and one was *Wormtail*! What confirmation of Snape's beliefs and fears! Another reason for Snape to hear nothing, listen to nothing, for he has a quite reasonable, defensible, and complete explanation in his head already. Wrong, yes, but quite reasonable. Argh. There are so many possibilities feeding in to why Snape reacts the way he does to what he hears, it's maddening. Anyway. As promised/threatened, here's the repost of What Snape Knew and When. Because you guys may want to refer to it, if this thread develops. ~Amanda It Is Time. Begin old post 15233: In the Shrieking Shack-- Sirius drags Ron in, Harry & Hermione follow. They find Ron & Sirius in human form, and discover than Sirius is an animagus. Much arguing, Harry attacks Sirius, Crookshanks protects Sirius, Lupin arrives. Lupin and Sirius come to understanding of what happened with the Potters, mystifying our Trio who think this means Lupin's bad, too. Hermione reveals Lupin is a werewolf. Lupin gives wands back to the Trio, and gets them to agree to listen to him and Sirius. Lupin reveals he helped write the map, says he is Moony. Tells them that Scabbers is Peter Pettigrew. Sirius loses it and tries to attack Scabbers. Lupin restrains him and gets him to agree to explain things to Harry first. Lupin says the map showed Scabbers as Peter Pettigrew, that the map does not lie. Hermione says Pettigrew isn't on the list of registered Animagi. ****HERE is where the door creaks and Snape comes invisibly in, under Harry's cloak. Now is the point where he starts hearing things. He has heard none of what went on before. He has not heard that Scabbers is supposed to be Pettigrew, or that Sirius is an animagus. Snape now hears: Lupin tells about contracting lycanthropy, that there was no cure, and even the potion Snape's been making is a recent discovery. Before the potion, he was uncontrollable every month as a wolf. But headmaster Dumbledore let him in with precautions. The Shack and the Whomping Willow were there to keep Lupin isolated during his wolf phases. Lupin reveals that his great group of friends was Sirius, Peter, and James, who figured out his secret and became animagi to be with him. It took until their fifth year to learn how. He *does not* say what their forms were--he mentions only that Peter was the smallest, so he manipulated the Willow, and that James and Sirius were large animals, able to keep his wolf form under control. He does reveal the other Marauders' aliases--Padfoot, Wormtail, Prongs. Harry tries to ask what sort of animal his father was, but is cut off by Hermione. Lupin agrees with Hermione that even with friends who could control him, it was still a really stupid thing to do and a betrayal of Dumbledore's trust, and he still feels guilty. He reveals his inner struggle of the past year, too, about whether to reveal Sirius's animagus ability to Dumbledore, and that he has not. He still didn't want Dumbledore to know how he had betrayed his trust then, because he doesn't want to damage the trust that is there now. He *still* has not mentioned what form Sirius takes. And here is where he mentions Snape, "In a way, Snape's been right about me all along." Sirius asks what Snape has to do with it, and Lupin says, "He's here," which made me, in the first reading, remember the door opening and wonder if he really WAS, whether Lupin was "speaking the truth without realizing it" (I forget the literary term). Lupin continues, though, and we see he means at Hogwarts. Lupin says Snape, as a fellow teacher, fought against Lupin's appointment. And that Snape, as a fellow student, didn't like Lupin and his friends. Especially James, and thought he was jealous of James' Quidditch ability. Snape had seen Madam Pomfrey taking Lupin to the Willow once, had wondered why, and Sirius had told Snape the way to get past the Willow. Snape followed Lupin to find out what the deal was, but James had gotten wind of the trick, went after Snape, and pulled him back, but Snape had seen Lupin and knew the truth. Dumbledore forbade him to tell anyone. Harry asks if that's why Snape dislikes Lupin, because he thought Lupin was in on the joke? ****HERE is where Snape reveals himself to the others in the Shack. Thus far, the only new thing he has heard is that his old enemies, whom we now call the Marauders, were unregistered animagi, and that they wrote the map which so nastily insulted him earlier. Snape says he saw the activated map on Lupin's desk, when he went to Lupin's office with the potion which Lupin forgot to take. He saw Lupin on the map running along the passageway. He follows. The Shrieking Shack is *not* on the Hogwarts grounds, so it would not appear on the map, so Snape could not at this point have seen Peter Pettigrew's name on it. Even if he'd waited to examine it closely, instead of chasing after Lupin right then. Lupin tries to get Snape to listen. Snape won't, ties and gags Lupin, and holds Black at bay. Our Trio try to reason with Snape--they want to hear the rest of the story--but it seems to irritate Snape that they aren't even grateful at his saving them, and will not listen. Black says he'll come quietly if Ron's rat is brought, too. Snape threatens him with the dementors with no chance to speak, and threatens Lupin, too. Harry blocks the door. Snape offers to *make* Harry move, and simultaneiously, Harry, Hermione, and Ron all do the Expelliarmus charm to disarm Snape. The combined charms knock Snape back against the wall, injured and unconscious. ****THIS IS THE END of what Snape hears in the Shack. He misses *entirely* the whole scene where Lupin and Sirius make Pettigrew reveal himself, tell what happened, and pretty much confess and grovel. He doesn't even hear that Sirius is Harry's godfather, so I don't know that he knows that, either. Snape does not regain consciousness after they all leave the Shack, after Lupin transforms, after Sirius transforms into a dog to control him, after Pettigrew re-transforms and escapes, and after Sirius goes after him. He does not regain consciousness until after Harry's Patronus dispels the dementors, because he tells Fudge he doesn't know what made them leave. He still hasn't seen Sirius animagus form, nor heard it named, nor any of the other Marauder's forms. He still has not heard Pettigrew's name, other than in the discussion of old school days. He has not heard anyone say Scabbers is Pettigrew. The sum total of his new knowledge from the whole Shrieking Shack incident is only that the Marauders had animagus forms and that they wrote the map. So, all personal animosity aside, Snape still honestly believes Black is a dangerous, demented murderer to the end of PoA. However, his reaction when suddenly faced with Sirius at the end of GoF is *not* to whip out his wand and try to subdue him, pending arrest and dementors. It is pure, simple hatred on a personal level. From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 12 02:47:56 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:47:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Theory on why harry had to go home (end book 4) Message-ID: <12.2a0953a6.2b2952dc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48182 In a message dated 11/12/2002 19:52:54 Eastern Standard Time, sixhoursahead at yahoo.com writes: > Go Back Home To The Dursley's? > Hi all- new to list... Even in the magical community, I think J.K.R. has endeavoured to make it clear that there are many laws which are the same. Petunia Evans, now Dursley, was Harry's only living relative, so most likely the same laws apply in the magical world as in the muggle world. If this isn't the case, there are many arguments for why, although the Durselys were not the most wonderful home that could have been provided, Harry needed to go live there. Here are a few off the top of my head: 1. After Lord Voldemort's attack on Harry, Dumbledore knew that the Death Eaters, not caught and sent to Azkaban, would surely want to kill Harry. 2. If Voldemorte regained his strength before Harry was old enough to attend Hogwarts, he would have had an easier time finding Harry in a wizarding household. ( The scar would have tipped anyone off as to Harry's identity.) 3. Harry's Godfather, the only other viable gaurdian at the time, was thought to have tipped off Lord V. on the whereabouts of Lilly and James POtter... and of course that was that whole Petter Pettigrew mess in the street that he was also wrongfully blamed for causing. 4.Perhaps there is some twist in the plot of the books yet to come that will explain why Dumbledore thought perhaps it was best that Harry go to a muggle family. Just my thoughts, Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From potterfan23 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 04:49:36 2002 From: potterfan23 at hotmail.com (Emily F) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:49:36 -0600 Subject: Wizard Religion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48183 AD said: >But another question that's probably already been raised -- How would a Muggle-born witch or wizard who was raised in an extremely religious family adapt to the knowledge of his or her nature? So many lines of faith state that magic is inherently evil, comes from Satan, etc... How would the child cope with the knowledge? And what would his/her family do? And what, if any, intervention would come from the WW? Me: Actually, a lot of religions believe in "magic", and indeed find nothing evil in it inherently. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all contain magic or mysticism in one form or another. I know that many of the saints and great figures of Christian history are known for their mysticism or their ability to perform miracles. It's not the *magic* but the *source* that is evil. If everyone in the WW worships Satan and receives their power from him, then I might be a tad bit horrified if my child were called to join their ranks! :-) However, it's safe to say that that isn't true. Perhaps Dumbledore explains this to Christian parents in a letter or something? I'm sure he's had to make this distinction before. Alas, I doubt Rowling will enlighten us. (Note: I don't intend for this to lead into a discussion on how different sects of each religion have treated this subject; suffice to say, I recognize the fact that not all members of each religion agree on mysticism.) I have a general belief that, in the HP world, magic is a gift or talent that some people possess, and some don't; but if one is gifted, then it must come from somewhere. If the WW were real, I for one would have no problem reconciling it with my religious beliefs, and I'm a Bible-thumping Christian. ;-) Emily _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 12 04:55:19 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (sirius_padfoot_snuffles_black ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:55:19 -0000 Subject: Wizard Appearances In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sixhoursahead " wrote: > People were mentioning about why wizards do not correct their > vision. We all know that the magic in HP has definite boundaries, > some we have seen, some we have not, and some are hinted at. Like, > why can Bill Weasley conjure tableclothes, but Mrs. Weasley can't > conjure new school robes? Obviously there is a definite limit here, > and with good reason, the wizard society is just as apitalist as > muggle society. I yeild agreement to this. However, I think there are also some other points in the books that may give even more depth to the answers. For instance, some spells are more complicated than other and some wizarding folks are inclined to be better in different areas. At the table in GoF, the Weasleys discuss Apparating. So we know that there are tests of wizarding skill beyong Hogwarts. ( I don't have my books in front of me so I have to say...) One of the eldets Weasley boys, either Charlie or Bill, if I remember correctly, explain how there have been bungled attempts to apparate over the years by many witches and wizards.... This leads me to think that, perhaps, certain skills, such as conjuring up new robes- as you mentioned- might be one of these scenarios, where the person in question- Mrs. Weasley- may not have that particular skill. This is all just a theory of course, but it does make the Wizarding World more realistic to think that each person has strengths and weaknesses in the use of magic. -Snuffles From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Dec 12 07:14:13 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:14:13 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: <6.460e528.2b299145@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48185 Melody: > So I ask, is this inconsistent? Is the problem supposed to be the act > of seeking on Voldemort's and Crouch Sr.'s behalf, or is it that they > went *too* far in their seeking? And if the answer is that 'they went > too far', then please explain why it is ok for Harry? Is there is a > limit to how far one should go in seeking power? One should not, say, > break their arm for a silly thing like power? > > And yet, the creed does not say that. It is the *seeking* that is > bad. It is the seeking that taints well-meaning people. > > Please show me where my logic is wrong. This greatly bothers me. > > Is the act of seeking shown as wrong in the series? > I'm feeling a little too tired to do justice to this, but I wanted to reply, if only briefly, because it's such an interesting and thought-provoking question. My own feeling is that it's not so much the seeking in itself which is the problem as that which is sought. In other words it ties in with the theme of Choices. As far as Quidditch is concerned, I think of Krum. What do we make of his action at the QWC? He wasn't seeking personal power or glory as such, but to uphold the honour of his team in the face of inevitable defeat. He was actually risking great opprobrium from those who didn't realise his motivation, but thought he was simply throwing the game. I agree that seeking in that single-minded way as you describe can destructive and that the series does tend to reinforce that view. Isn't this the message of the Mirror of Erised? That one can waste away in single-minded pursuit of the unobtainable? That what we seek often is not what we need? But again, it comes back to choices. But when I look outside HP, to the traditions on which JKR may be drawing, there's a lot of noble seeking. People often draw Arthurian parallels; can we link in concepts such as the pursuit of the Holy Grail? The Bible, with which JKR is obviously familiar contains positive examples of seeking: the widow for her lost coin, the shepherd for the lost sheep, etc. Is Harry's Quidditch position, his pursuit of that which is elusive but valuable (and which he ultimately pursues not for personal glory, but for his team and his House) perhaps allegorical? I think we have to examine the question of seeking in the light of the theme of Choices. "What" is being sought and what means are chosen to pursue it? Again, returning to the Mirror of Erised, both Harry and Quirrell sought the stone in the mirror, but only the one with pure motives was able to find it. Both Voldemort and Dumbledore have sought eternal life, but they have done it in different ways, Voldemort for personal gain, Dumbledore - well, who knows? But Dumbledore was able to renounce that search in the interests of the greater good . He destroyed the Philosopher's Stone, whilst Voldemort continues to seek immortality. In the Second Task, the competitors had to seek their lost friends. All sought, but the winner was the one sought with the interests of the "lost" uppermost in his considerations, rather than thought of personal gain. So seeking in itself is not bad, but it is risky, as Harry knows and it is open to corruption. We do risk seeking the wrong thing and if we *choose* to seek the wrong thing, we and possibly others, will pay the penalty What a serious way to start the day! I'm sure there's losts more in this theme to explore, but I have to get back to RL. ~Eloise ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every time we look at it we see a different hue. (Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From voldemort at tut.by Thu Dec 12 07:57:54 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Sasha HP) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:57:54 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1241242486.20021212095754@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48186 Greetings! > Ashfae wrote: A> My problem is that we tend to use the number of male A> students in Harry's year as a basis for further A> estimation, but it's entirely possible that it's an A> unusual number. Perhaps there were just less people A> sorted into Gryffindor during that particular year; A> where's the fuss? For all we know there were thirty boys A> sorted into Gryffindor the previous year, or twenty A> Ravenclaws and forty Hufflepuffs sorted into their A> respective houses while only five boys were sorted into A> Gryffindor. We don't have all the information, and an A> estimation based on that one single fact is not likely to A> be accurate. It's not a single fact. We know for sure that 5 boys were sorted into Gryffindor in Harry's year. We know that there were 10 total Gryffindor students in Harry's year (prof. Lupin's Boggart lesson). We know that there were 20 total Gryffindor and Slytherin students in Harry's year (Flying lesson). We know that dining tables of all four Houses are of the same size (well, it's not said in any of the books, but it's a reasonable assumption, isn't it?). We know that there are about 12-13 teachers in Hogwarts, no more (don't remember the actual number), which is enough to teach 280 students, but not enough to teach the crowd of 1000 students. We also have an uncanonical evidence from the MTSNBN where all four tables have equal empty space for first-years. Probably there are other clues as well, and new ones are likely to come. But current evidence is that number of students in Hogwarts is 280... er... no, now it's 279. And you are right, this subject has been raised not a single time here. Just search the archives for it (IIRC last time this topic even had the *same* subject). Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From Lynx412 at aol.com Thu Dec 12 03:24:42 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:24:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville just can't! (Re: Which friend?) Message-ID: <184.13572059.2b295b7a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48187 In a message dated 12/11/02 8:14:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, kethlenda at yahoo.com writes: > I think he just might be an example of how history doesn't have to repeat > itself--Pettigrew was weak and fell to Voldemort, but Neville stays > strong. This is something I thought about too. History is not repeating itself here, because of Hermione. Not the gender difference, but the fact that instead of trying to persuade Neville to help them, Hermione paralyzed him. After all, Neville, who's strong point is herbology, could have just as easily solved the Devil's Snare problem. as it is, this gave Hermione two solutions, the plant and the puzzle. What if Neville had come? Hmmm... Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 03:51:50 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:51:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape In-Reply-To: <55.334f1076.2b290f4a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021212035150.63646.qmail@web40503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48188 I asked, > And another question concerning Lupin: why does Snape hate him? As far as > the Prank goes, Sirius is the one to blame, Or did something else happen that we don't know about? Wendy replied: It's my opinion that Snape hated Lupin because for many years Snape believed Lupin *did* have had a part in the planning of the "prank." In the Shrieking Shack, Snape finds out that this belief was incorrect, and that Lupin was not in on the "prank" at all (from what we know in canon, it seems as though Sirius started it entirely by himself, telling no one else but James, who then ran in and saved Severus). So now Snape knows the truth - that Lupin wasn't at fault. But, being Snape, he is slow to let go of a grudge . Me: Your arguments make sense, all except one. How could Snape think that Lupin planned the Prank along with S and J? I mean, that automatically means that Lupin planned to become a murderer! Even Snape, who hates James' guts along with all James' friends, couldn't think that Lupin would plan to eat somebody. No, I just don't understand it. ::stares, puzzled, at the computer screen:: Maria, who should think about something else, like her exam tomorrow. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 10:05:52 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:05:52 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48190 Okay, in a nutshell: I can't understand how anyone can be so hard on Sirius. It's a miracle he's alive and sane at the point where he returns to "normal" wizarding life - he is a very hardy survivor, and IMNSHO opinion, that's a solid virtue. No doubt he was traumatized by what happened, but some very hardy personalities have a way of shunting aside what is going on in the near term in order to survive. I'm not convinced that Sirius' mind is completely out of the "I'm in danger" mode yet by the end of GoF, *nor should it be*. Felinia As an aside - I have a very close friend who suffers from PTSD from Vietnam. How long ago was that? He has received treatment and counselling over the years, finished up a military career, gone through school, started a new one, had a son...and still he gets traumatized *and violent towards anyone who tries to touch him uninvited, including those he loves* - in the presence of fireworks (or sirens or anything else happening close, loud and unwarned). Webpages aside: this is very up close and personal, and happened again just this past February. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Dec 12 12:02:57 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:02:57 -0000 Subject: Hermione's birthday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48191 "Heidi Tandy" wrote: >>> Without anything other than Angelina and Hermione's birthdays to base this on, I could argue that Hogwarts, predating the modern British school system by a few hundred years as it does, uses the Fall Equinox in late September as its cutoff date. It would enable Angelina to be 17 at that point in her 6th year - and cedric as well - while placing Hermione's birthday 6 weeks after Harry's<<< I like this suggestion, but why would they follow the Autumn Equninox though? The school holidays, basic ages of the kids and exam system even, follow the English/Welsh school system. Whilst your suggestion fits the facts and would dig JKR out of a hole if she had to explain it; it doesn't seem to fit well with everything else we know about the school system. I personally still believe that Hermione is a year older than Harry, and the sentence about 2 "13 year old wizards" is a FLINT. I wonder if JKR would ever admit to this though! Ali From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Dec 12 12:16:13 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:16:13 -0500 Subject: The Quidditch Metaphor: The Role of Quidditch in HP Message-ID: <003e01c2a1d8$438cbd20$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48192 The following is something I've been working on for awhile in my spare time, but Melody's question about *seeking* and Eloise's response that it might be allegorical has prompted me to get it out of my drafts folder and onto the list. It doesn't directly address those questions, but it touches on the issues they raised. A couple of caveats: The citations are a bit thin, since I began writing it without access to the books. The primary references are: PS/SS Slytherin match (ch. 11); Hufflepuff match (ch. 13); CoS Slytherin match (ch. 10); PoA Hufflepuff match (ch. 9); PoA Ravenclaw match (ch. 13); PoA Slytherin match (ch. 15); QWC (GoF ch. 8). Oliver Wood's initial description of Quidditch is in PS/SS ch. 10. Second caveat: I know nothing about literature or literary analysis. I even had to look up "metaphor" in the dictionary. Everything herein is, therefore, just an observation. THE QUIDDITCH METAPHOR: THE ROLE OF QUIDDITCH IN HP What is the function of Quidditch in the books?. JKR has said she included Quidditch in the books "because sport is such an important part of life at school (Scholastic, Oct. 2000). And so it is. The inter-House sports rivalries help set the boarding-school stage and make the atmosphere seem believable. Quidditch also provides a setting for significant plot developments, such as Quirrell's attempt to kill Harry by unseating him from his broom in PS/SS and the appearance of the Dementors in PoA. But it's just a game. Quidditch and the quest for the Quidditch cup often seem to me to be a diversion from the more important things going on in the series. On reflection, however, I think there's a lot more to Quidditch than that. I think JKR has used Quidditch as a metaphor for the struggle against Voldemort and the players' roles in the fight; moreover, the Quidditch sequences appear to foreshadow subsequent events. When you think about it, sport seems an obvious choice for a metaphor. A game or sporting competition *is* an armed conflict of a sort. In fact, here in the US football players are frequently referred to as "weekend warriors." What is significant here, I think, is how carefully JKR appears to have modeled each position and chosen who will play each position to mirror their personalities and/or their possible role in the coming war, and how she has choreographed the matches themselves to foreshadow what happens in the Voldemort struggle. SEEKER This position presents, I think, the most obvious parallel. The Seeker is the most important player on the team. If the Seeker succeeds in catching the Snitch, he/she garners 150 points for the team, vs. only 10 points per goal scored by a Chaser. In addition, because catching the Snitch ends the match, a truly superior Seeker, such as Harry or Viktor Krum, can control when the game ends by choosing whether to go after the Snitch himself or to prevent the opposing Seeker from catching it. It's very rare for a team to win if its Seeker does not catch the Snitch. Oliver Wood sounds like a hyperzealous fanatic when he tells Harry before the CoS Slytherin match, "Get to that Snitch before Malfoy or die trying, Harry, because we've got to win today, we've got to." But he's right: If Gryffindor is to have a chance of winning, Harry had better catch the Snitch. Without Harry, Gryffindor was "steamrollered" by Ravenclaw (PS/SS ch. 17), for their "worst defeat in 300 years" (though this last sounds like hyperbole). The QWC is an anomaly in this respect (as I discuss further below). The best Seekers are also extraordinary athletes. Harry is the first first-year Seeker in a century. Harry has a tremendous gift for Quidditch, but many of the same skills that make him a success at Quidditch - keen observatory skills, the ability to act quickly, physical bravery, and resourcefulness under pressure - are the same skills that allow him to succeed against Voldemort. They also set him apart from the rest of the Quidditch team and from the other students. Though Harry yearns for normality - to be just one of the students who can go enjoy weekend trips to Hogsmeade - he is *not* normal. Harry is special, whether by his extraordinary talent or merely because he is marked for death by Voldemort. It does not matter how much he wants to be a normal teenager. He will be targeted and pursued by Voldemort and therefore will likely be a pivotal figure in that struggle. His only choice is whether to use his gifts and for what purpose. He accepted the opportunity to play Quidditch as a first-year (the first in a century) after being plucked out of the crowd, and he accepts the opportunity to fight against Voldemort despite great personal risk. Moreover, Seeker is the most dangerous position of all. Seekers are the players that are most at risk of being "clobbered by the other team", at least according to Seamus (PS/SS ch. 11), even without Dobby's assistance. Harry has an extraordinary ability to sidestep the Bludgers sent his way on the Quidditch field, as well as the metaphorical Bludgers he encounters - Quirrelmort, the basilisk, Voldemort in the graveyard. He gets help, of course, but in the end he does it by himself. This leads to the next Seeker parallel. The role of a Quidditch Seeker on the team is solitary. Teammates provide support - i.e., Beaters may assist in removing obstacles that may impede the Seeker's search for the Snitch, and the Chasers and Keeper help keep the team in the game by scoring goals and preventing the opponents from scoring. But a Seeker doesn't really interact with the team during play. The Seeker must find and catch the Snitch by himself, just as Harry must face Voldemort alone. So far in the series, of course, though he has had a great deal of help getting there, Harry has faced down each Voldemort threat (Quirrelmort, Diary!Riddle and the graveyard) by himself. But despite being such a solitary role, the best Seeker is a team player. The Seeker should be fully aware of the progress of the game, because catching the Snitch when the team is too far behind will cost the team a victory. Harry exemplifies all of these qualities on and off the Quidditch pitch - he may dream of glory, as he does after the QWC, but he is a true team player. In the PoA Ravenclaw match, Harry sees the Snitch but deliberately avoids catching it, choosing instead to divert Cho's attention because Gryffindor was down by more than 150 points. Compare this to Viktor Krum's decision to end the QWC on his own terms, even though he seals Bulgaria's loss to Ireland. This preserved his own status as the most brilliant Seeker, and though it could be interpreted as sparing his team the ignominy of a worse defeat, he snatched any hope Bulgaria might have had of pulling off a stunning comeback. I don't think Harry would ever do that - in my mind, he would always give his team a chance for victory, even though things might seem hopeless. As an example, in PS/SS Harry is able to get the Stone because he doesn't want it for himself. He recognizes immediately that the issue is greater than the Stone itself. In countering Hermione's argument that he should not go through the trapdoor because he might be expelled, Harry states, "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the Stone, Voldemort's coming back! There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! . . . . Losing points doesn't matter anymore. D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor wins the House Cup?" (PS?SS ch. 16). He's not avenging the death of his parents, and he's not doing it for the glory. Unlike Krum, Harry won't catch the Snitch, or face down Voldemort, just to get glory for himself. BEATERS The Beaters' job, in one sentence, is to create chaos. During a match, the Beaters disrupt their opponents but have no offensive role. (QttA states that there is no indication that Beaters have ever handled the Quaffle.) The Beaters guard their teammates from the Bludgers and, as Oliver Wood points out, they also "try and knock them toward the other team." They are the only players that carry implements - and the clubs are themselves weapons. In essence, the Beaters to act as rogues to protect their team: they're *supposed* to aim Bludgers (which, as they're 10-inch iron balls, more resemble weapons more than implements of sport) at their opponents, and if the opponents are hurt, well, that's just a part of the game. Beaters also seem to have a penchant for rulebreaking. The only non-Beaters we ever see drawing penalties are Slytherins (which seems to fit with the characteristic that they will "do anything to achieve their ends"). Some examples: * In the PS/SS match against Hufflepuff (after Wood specifically told the team to play clean because Snape was refereeing) George cost Gryffindor a penalty because he aimed a Bludger at Snape, who was refereeing - and in a match that only lasted 5 minutes! * In the PoA match against Slytherin, Fred responds to an attack on Angelina by Marcus Flint by intentionally hitting Flint on the head with his club. Flint's violation earned Gryffindor a penalty shot, but Fred's violation offset it, as Slytherin got a penalty shot as well. Fortunately for him, Wood made a fabulous save, while Angelina was able to score on her penalty shot. Nevertheless, that kind of lawlessness can get the team in trouble. And the Slytherin Beaters go directly after Harry with their clubs after Harry has successfully avoided both their bludgers. Fortunately, Harry avoids them as well. * At the QWC, the Bulgarian Beaters, Volkov and Vulchanov (whose names recall the iron Bludgers themselves), "seemed not to care whether their clubs made contact with Bludger or human as they swung them violently through the air." On the other hand, though the Beaters on both sides "were acting without mercy" only the Bulgarian Beaters are seen to break the rules; the Irish Beater Quigley is seen making a clean swing of his bat and hitting the Bludger in the direction of Krum, who was the chief threat to the Irish team. * One other Beater deserves mention here. And though we only know Ludo Bagman from his behavior off the Quidditch pitch, he's not exactly shown to be a model of law-abiding behavior, either. It's not just that he's a gambler; it's that he welches on his bets. The Beaters we know best are the Twins, whose position as Beaters appears to be typecasting in the extreme. In describing the Beaters' jobs, Wood states that the Twins are "like a pair of human Bludgers themselves." And off the pitch, they repeatedly prove Wood right, for example, by aggressively dealing with Harry's antagonizers Dudley (Ton-Tongue Toffee) and Draco (the Train Stomp Incident). But like clubbing the Slytherins on the head, those actions have been viewed by some readers as excessive, even though Harry defends the Twins when they get in trouble after the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident, showing that he appreciates their support and efforts. The Twins give Harry positive support, too, the most notable example being giving Harry the Marauder's Map so he could visit Hogsmeade illegally. Nevertheless, though this was a magnanimous gesture, to date the Map has done little to help Harry except to aid him in mischief-making. In PoA Harry uses it only to get to Hogsmeade, and in GoF he uses it only to bathe in the Prefect's Bathroom. On the other hand, Crouch/Moody used it effectively to find and kill his father, and Lupin's use of it in PoA led to Pettigrew's escape. On balance, then, the Twins' greatest gift to Harry has already caused as much harm as good. Could the Twins' actions as Beaters foreshadow their role in the struggle? Will their rulebreaking (or their joke shop products) be used for the benefit of the dark side? If so, perhaps Gryffindor's ability to win despite their occasional fouls foreshadows Harry's eventual victory over Voldemort notwithstanding any trouble the Twins might cause. CHASERS We don't see much of any Chasers outside the context of the Quidditch matches themselves, but it seems to me that Chasers represent the importance of teamwork, support and loyalty. The Chasers on each team, by working together, will keep their team in the game and give their Seeker the opportunity to seize victory by catching the Snitch. In the usual case, the collective contributions of the Chasers are essential to victory. The work of the best Chasers (the team of Troy, Mullet and Moran at the QWC, who "work together as a seamless unit") is enough to win the QWC despite the fact that their Seeker was outmatched and concussed, but this appears to have been an anomaly - certainly Bagman was surprised by it. The only match in which the Chasers' match did not appear to make a difference was the PS/SS match against Hufflepuff in which Harry was able to see and grab the Snitch in the first five minutes. But this was also an anomaly; the Snitch is normally elusive and out of sight. The Seeker depends on the support of his/her teammates to keep the match close until the Snitch can be found. This was Krum's problem: his Chasers were unable to keep the game close enough for him. The Chasers, however, cannot seal a victory; only the Seeker can do that. The Chasers' excellent teamwork can only contribute in two ways: by keeping their team in the game, and, in the intra-House championship, to supply enough points so that their team will win the House Cup in the event of a tie in the standings (as happens in PoA). There are numerous off-pitch "Chasers" that support Harry in each showdown, and in each case, though Harry must face each final challenge alone, he could not succeed without their support, in the same way that Harry cannot ordinarily win a Quidditch match without his teammates. To briefly recap, Harry needs the assistance of Hermione and Ron to negotiate the obstacles protecting the Philosopher's Stone; he needs the information Hermione provides as well as hints from Dumbledore and Hagrid to find and kill the basilisk; he needs more hints from Dumbledore as well as Lupin's Patronus lessons and Hermione's Time-Turner to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak; and he needs all the spells Hermione can teach him in the Triwizard Tournament, plus the help of his shadow parents and Fawkes in the graveyard. And I'm sure there are others that I've missed. Though this list illustrates that Harry gets help from many sources, the most constant support comes from Hermione, who provides critical help in each book and who is always chasing down information that Harry will need later -Nicholas Flamel, the basilisk, spells Harry will need in the Triwizard Tournament. It's perhaps not at all accidental that the Gryffindor chasers (and the Irish chasers) are all female. KEEPER This position is the most enigmatic to date. We've seen very little of the Keeper during matches. Moreover, Oliver Wood as a character seems mostly intended as a humorous take on the fanatical coach whose sole focus in life is winning at all costs. Wood's lack of any significant future role in the books seems to be confirmed by his current job as reserve Keeper for a professional Quidditch team. But we do know this: a Keeper is the last line of defense for the team against goal-scoring. Like the Chasers, the Keeper's role is to keep the team in the game. Lee Jordan described Wood's spectacular grab of a Slytherin penalty shot in PoA, appropriately, as a "save." Also, though we have not seen this happen so far in the series, I expect that a Keeper that is truly worth his salt would, when given a choice between being smacked by a Bludger and allowing the Quaffle to go through the goalposts, choose to make the save. Thus, the Keeper's role can be seen as sacrificial - taking one for the team, as it were. If the Keeper is likely to be called upon to sacrifice to the cause of the team, then the selection of the next Keeper may foreshadow that character's role in the war ahead. Perhaps the new Keeper - whoever it is - will be put in a situation at some point in the series where he/she will be called upon to choose whether to save himself (or herself) or to sacrifice to allow Harry to continue the quest to defeat Voldemort. Ron is often suggested as a candidate for sacrifice, based on his chess sacrifice in PS/SS. Funny, though, I never thought of him as a Quidditch player. I tend to think his development as a character would be better served by his *not* joining the Quidditch team, as it seems too easy a solution for his jealousy and need for attention, which has been carefully developed through the first four books. So, IMO, the field is wide open for this position. CAPTAIN Through the first three books, Oliver Wood was, in addition to Keeper, also the team captain and its chief strategist. It was his decision to keep Harry as the secret weapon in PS/SS, and his decision that Harry should stay far away from the action at his first match until he actually sees the Snitch. Wood was the one who continually reminded Harry that in the final PoA match against Slytherin he should not catch the Snitch unless Gryffindor was more than 50 points ahead. The Keeper position and the coach's job will not necessarily continue to be occupied by the same person, but the team will continue to need good coaching skills. As I see it, the primary coach of the "light" team that will fight Voldemort - of whom the nucleus would appear to be the "old crowd" mentioned at the end of GoF - has been Dumbledore himself. (Harry does have other mentors, such as Sirius and Lupin, but they don't give advice consistently in each book.) Though Dumbledore is never present at the climax of any book in the series, in each case Harry relies on advice Dumbledore has provided to him: in PS/SS Harry's understanding of the Mirror of Erised is of critical importance; in CoS, after Dumbledore gives a pointed hint in Hagrid's hut, Harry invokes his loyalty to Dumbledore in the chamber and is rewarded with Fawkes and the Sorting Hat bearing Godric Gryffindor's sword, which are the tools he needs to defeat the basilisk; in PoA, Dumbledore coaches Harry and Hermione on their mission to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak; and in GoF, he associates a critical piece of advice in the graveyard ("Don't break the connection") with Dumbledore. It has been speculated that Dumbledore will die or otherwise be taken out of the picture in the next book or two in order to allow Harry to shoulder all responsibility for himself and complete his hero's journey. There is some sense of that already in GoF, in which Harry does not rely on specific advice from Dumbledore but instead only imagines that Dumbledore is telling him not to break the connection. The way in which this passage is written suggests to me that Harry finds that advice within himself. What does the hero's journey have to do with Quidditch? Well, if Harry is on a hero's journey, and Dumbledore is the counsellor and metaphorical team captain who will at some point leave the scene to allow the hero to reach full maturity, and if my premise that Quidditch mirrors in some respect what happens in the Voldemort wars is correct, then Harry must be named captain of the Quidditch team. Perhaps this will happen in OoP, or perhaps one of the seventh-years will take on that role for a year (as I suggest above with respect to the Beaters and Chasers, choosing a Twin or a Chaser might be very significant for the action in OoP), leaving Harry another year to prepare to shoulder the burden himself. But I think it will happen at some point, if JKR is indeed drawing the parallels I'm suggesting. THE BROOMS There can be no getting around it: Harry has the best equipment money can buy. In PS/SS he gets a top-of-the-line Nimbus 2000 and then, when it is shattered in PoA, he gets a Firebolt, the best broom in the world. Most of Harry's competition is playing with inferior equipment. Cho, for example, rides a Comet Two Sixty, which "is going to look like a joke next to the Firebolt," according to Wood, and the description of the Ravenclaw match makes clear that Cho's broom can't keep up with Harry's, though Harry acknowledges her flying skills. The Slytherins, of course, have Nimbus 2001s, which provided them with a momentary advantage over Harry until he acquired the Firebolt. But Draco, too focused on his own glory to concentrate on the task at hand, cannot put his advantage to good use and cannot catch the Snitch even though it hovers by his own ear. The conclusion: Harry has the skills to win without the best equipment. (In the PoA match against Slytherin, where Harry needs the speed of his Firebolt to catch up to Draco to get the Snitch, the reason he needs the power is telling - he had diverted his attention from looking for the Snitch to defend his teammate against an onslaught of Slytherins.) THE MATCHES AS FORESHADOWING The second illustration of how well Quidditch is woven into the fabric of the series is how the Quidditch matches in the books foreshadow that book's climax. GoF The QWC can be viewed as foreshadowing what happens in the graveyard. Ireland wins the QWC despite Krum's capture of the Snitch because its Chasers demonstrate exquisite skill and teamwork. I see Ireland as representing the "light" side and Bulgaria as the Dark Side -- suggested by the fact that its Seeker, Krum, attends Durmstrang, where students are taught the Dark Arts and not merely to defend against them. Krum's strategy is to take the Irish Seeker, Lynch, out of the game by using the Wronski Feint. I don't think it's accidental that JKR shows how bloodied both Seekers become, or that Lynch continues to play despite an apparent concussion, and manages to hang in there through the end. The sight of Lynch, dazed and confused, in the Top Box with the other members of his team, is symbolically important, as is the sight of Krum's bloody nose, indicating that he did not get through the match unscathed. If you compare this to what happens in the graveyard, Voldemort, the "seeker" of power and immortality, achieves a great personal victory through his re-birthing. Voldemort's rebirthing appears to have been spectacularly successful, like Krum's capture of the Snitch. By the end of the graveyard scene, Harry has been Stunned, Imperio'd, and Crucio'd. Like Lynch, he is dazed and confused. But Voldemort does not succeed in taking Harry out of the game - he escapes before Voldemort can kill him. Bulgaria should have such an advantage with the "unbelievable" Krum, but his supporting cast proves unable to provide the necessary support. Likewise, the team of DEs Voldemort assembles - who, he notes, have been disloyal and who are cowering in terror at the sight of Voldemort - does not appear to be up to the job. Voldemort, like Krum, wants the glory for himself and does not trust his supporting cast. So he takes on the job of killing Harry himself. But Harry's own supporting cast rises to the occasion: Fawkes (symbolically present, at a minimum, in the phoenix song Harry hears); his shadow parents, who give him the instructions he needs; Hermione, who is not present but who taught him to master the "Accio" charm through which Harry effects his escape via the Portkey, and certainly others who I've missed. On the other hand, when the terrified DEs are finally called into action as Harry dashes for the portkey, their spells cannot touch him, so Harry makes it back to Hogwarts. Though physically injured and emotionally wracked, he (like Aidan Lynch) will recover to fight another day. PoA Here the events of each Quidditch match foreshadow the events following the Shrieking Shack episode. In the first Quidditch match in PoA, against Hufflepuff, Harry succumbs to the power of the Dementors and passes out on his broomstick. Similarly, Harry1 is overcome by the Dementors and is unable to cast a Patronus as they surround him and Hermione (ch. 20). In the second match, against Ravenclaw, Harry successfully casts the Patronus (even though the "Dementors" turn out not to have been real so they do not affect him). And later on, Harry2 (TimeTurnered!Harry) conjures a very powerful Patronus (but because he is across the lake, he is relatively unaffected by the Dementors this time) (ch. 21). In the third match, against Slytherin, Harry manages to beat Draco to the Snitch - despite constant foul play by the Slytherins - with Snape decked out in green and watching from the front row. Later, Harry and Hermione engineer the escape of Sirius and Buckbeak, thwarting Draco's attempts to have Buckbeak executed and Snape's satisfaction at seeing Sirius captured. CoS Here Harry's battle with the rogue bludger seems to parallel Harry's later battle with the Basilisk. Dobby, bless him, unwittingly prepares Harry for the encounter. In the Quidditch match, Harry elects to take on the rogue Bludger by himself, to allow Fred and George to concentrate on protecting the rest of the team from the other Bludger. He does this even though he has no idea if it will do any good. But Harry outplays the Bludger, just as later on he outplays the Basilisk. The Bludger does manage to land a nasty blow on Harry's right arm, just above the elbow, as Harry grabs the Snitch. In the Chamber, the Basilisk bites Harry in the elbow -- almost exactly the same spot - just as Harry punches Godric's sword through the Basilisk and kills him (ch. 17). Both the Bludger and the Basilisk produce exactly the same "searing pain" in Harry's elbow; in both instances, he needs outside help to recover. PS/SS I've left this for last, because the parallels do not seem to work as foreshadowing like the parallels in the later books do. The primary parallel I see in the first Quidditch match, against Slytherin, is that the Trio suspect Snape both of trying to kill Harry during the Quidditch match and of trying to get through the obstacles to reach the Stone. However, since Harry doesn't learn that Snape was protecting him instead of jinxing him at the Quidditch match until he faces Quirrelmort, the element of foreshadowing is lacking. There is some foreshadowing in the Hufflepuff match, where Harry's grab of the Snitch in record time foreshadows his ability later on to retrieve the Stone instantly from the Mirror when he realizes he needs to keep Quirrelmort from getting it (ch. 17). However, I find this parallel less satisfying than those in the later books. Perhaps this is testimony to JKR's improvement as a writer as the series progresses, or to the fact that the plot of PS/SS is less complex than later plots. THE FUTURE OF QUIDDITCH It has been speculated that Quidditch might fade from the books as the series becomes darker and the serious threats facing the WW cause Quidditch to lose its power to thrill. I don't think this will happen. I believe that Quidditch is part of the structure underlying the books and it's unlikely that it will be scrapped. Harry's speech in PS/SS shows that he already knew at age 11 that winning the Quidditch cup isn't what really matters. Harry's lying when he tells Quirrell he sees himself in the mirror with the Quidditch cup. JKR makes that point again when, in PoA, Harry learns in his first Patronus lesson with Lupin (PoA ch. 12) that memories of flying or winning the House cup are not strong enough to produce a Patronus. But that doesn't mean that it's not valuable for Harry to play Quidditch. Quidditch helps keep Harry's spirits up, it sharpens skills he will need later, and JKR does give him a wonderful - but temporary - moment of the euphoria that accompanies a championship. I think she has a lot more Quidditch planned, and it will continue to be important to Harry, to the plot, and to the structure of the series. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 12 12:22:56 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:22:56 -0000 Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < > rusalka at i...> wrote: > > > Pettigrew, for all his snivelling, is > > cunning, resourceful, and very good at manipulating people when he's > > not having a crisis of nerves. > > I don't agree. What events from the story make you come to this > conclusion? > > CK As a young man, he fooled everyone about his loyalties for at least a year -- everyone from Dumbledore on down to his closest childhood friends. When the game fell apart, he framed Sirius with remarkable efficiency under very difficult circumstances. When he ran into Bertha Jorkins while on his way to Voldemort, he persuaded her to accompany him alone to an isolated place, even though she had every reason to be suspicious of him. Everyone underestimates him, but he always comes through when he has to. I think Pettigrew is an excellent actor and a very dangerous man. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 12 08:12:48 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:12:48 EST Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) Message-ID: <54.461cd3d.2b299f00@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48195 In a message dated 12/12/2002 01:51:53 Eastern Standard Time, clicketykeys at yahoo.com writes: > , "marinafrants " < > rusalka at i...> wrote: > > > Pettigrew, for all his snivelling, is > > cunning, resourceful, and very good at manipulating people when he's > > not having a crisis of nerves. > > I don't agree. What events from the story make you come to this > conclusion? > I agree with clickitykeys here. I also think that it should be noted in PoA, Chapter Four pgs 58-59, the witch speaking to Ron about Scabbers discusses the lack of powers the rat has. Now it has never been really brought up much in the book, but assuming that Anamagi retain their wizarding powers, Peter Pettigrew, were he cunning and resourceful could have done some serious damage while in animal form. Then later in the book, in MWPP, Sirius and Lupin elude to the fact that Peter was not a stellar wizard. My opinion is that Peter Pettigrew is no more than a mediocre wizard who by his own desires to out-do James and Sirius and by the influence of the dark lord, found himself personally empowered. But, it seems from PoA and GoF that Peter merely acts out the plans made by Voldemort. I don't think that rats would be considered an evil omen or animal in the least. JKR places too much emphasis on basilisks/serpents as evil. Scabbers up until PoA, had been a loyal pet passed down through the ranks of the Weasleys. He was in hiding and only after the experiences in the first three books with the knowledge he gains from being the pet of Ron, does he make his move to return to his Master. Just some of my opinions. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ehawkes at iinet.net.au Thu Dec 12 10:16:08 2002 From: ehawkes at iinet.net.au (Emma Hawkes) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:16:08 +0800 Subject: Ron and Money In-Reply-To: <1039650713.77445.40121.m7@yahoogroups.com> References: <1039650713.77445.40121.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48196 If I wanted to foreshadow Ron turning (which I definitely don't because he is my favourite character), I would have him give up on the Chudley Cannons and move on to a team which wins. Since he stubbornly and loyally sticks with them, I'll take that as a sign of this future relationship with Harry. Emma From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 12 05:28:44 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:28:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: <12e.1d585c5d.2b29788c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48197 In a message dated 12/12/2002 00:24:54 Eastern Standard Time, Malady579 at hotmail.com writes: > My question is what is the definition of "seeking" in HP text? > I would like to think that, perhaps the olf Tao-ist/Buddhist idea may play a role- "All questioning (read- seeking) is a certain means of never discovering truth" Meaning that desires for knowledge, power, money, etc blind us from seeing truths and it is only when we are not actively looking we find the answers. Just a thought... It *could* work. -Snuffles- who reads WAY too much into HP [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 14:01:53 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:01:53 -0000 Subject: The Quidditch Metaphor: The Role of Quidditch in HP In-Reply-To: <003e01c2a1d8$438cbd20$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48198 Let me just begin by congratulating Debbie on a wonderful, thorough post, on an idea I had never come across before! I won't cover the entire post, but here's just a few ideas of my own Debbie wrote: > What is the function of Quidditch in the books?. JKR has said she included Quidditch in the books "because sport is such an important part of life at school (Scholastic, Oct. 2000). And so it is. The inter-House sports rivalries help set the boarding-school stage and make the atmosphere seem believable. Quidditch also provides a setting for significant plot developments, such as Quirrell's attempt to kill Harry by unseating him from his broom in PS/SS and the appearance of the Dementors in PoA. But it's just a game. Quidditch and the quest for the Quidditch cup often seem to me to be a diversion from the more important things going on in the series. > > On reflection, however, I think there's a lot more to Quidditch than that. I think JKR has used Quidditch as a metaphor for the struggle against Voldemort and the players' roles in the fight; moreover, the Quidditch sequences appear to foreshadow subsequent events. When you think about it, sport seems an obvious choice for a metaphor. A game or sporting competition *is* an armed conflict of a sort. In fact, here in the US football players are frequently referred to as "weekend warriors." What is significant here, I think, is how carefully JKR appears to have modeled each position and chosen who will play each position to mirror their personalities and/or their possible role in the coming war, and how she has choreographed the matches themselves to foreshadow what happens in the Voldemort struggle. > > SEEKER > > This position presents, I think, the most obvious parallel. The Seeker is the most important player on the team. If the Seeker succeeds in catching the Snitch, he/she garners 150 points for the team, vs. only 10 points per goal scored by a Chaser. In addition, because catching the Snitch ends the match, a truly superior Seeker, such as Harry or Viktor Krum, can control when the game ends by choosing whether to go after the Snitch himself or to prevent the opposing Seeker from catching it. It's very rare for a team to win if its Seeker does not catch the Snitch. Oliver Wood sounds like a hyperzealous fanatic when he tells Harry before the CoS Slytherin match, "Get to that Snitch before Malfoy or die trying, Harry, because we've got to win today, we've got to." But he's right: If Gryffindor is to have a chance of winning, Harry had better catch the Snitch. Without Harry, Gryffindor was "steamrollered" by Ravenclaw (PS/SS ch. 17), for their "worst defeat in 300 years" (though this last sounds like hyperbole). The QWC is an anomaly in this respect (as I discuss further below). > > The best Seekers are also extraordinary athletes. Harry is the first first-year Seeker in a century. Harry has a tremendous gift for Quidditch, but many of the same skills that make him a success at Quidditch - keen observatory skills, the ability to act quickly, physical bravery, and resourcefulness under pressure - are the same skills that allow him to succeed against Voldemort. They also set him apart from the rest of the Quidditch team and from the other students. Though Harry yearns for normality - to be just one of the students who can go enjoy weekend trips to Hogsmeade - he is *not* normal. Harry is special, whether by his extraordinary talent or merely because he is marked for death by Voldemort. It does not matter how much he wants to be a normal teenager. He will be targeted and pursued by Voldemort and therefore will likely be a pivotal figure in that struggle. His only choice is whether to use his gifts and for what purpose. He accepted the opportunity to play Quidditch as a first-year (the first in a century) after being plucked out of the crowd, and he accepts the opportunity to fight against Voldemort despite great personal risk. > > Moreover, Seeker is the most dangerous position of all. Seekers are the players that are most at risk of being "clobbered by the other team", at least according to Seamus (PS/SS ch. 11), even without Dobby's assistance. Harry has an extraordinary ability to sidestep the Bludgers sent his way on the Quidditch field, as well as the metaphorical Bludgers he encounters - Quirrelmort, the basilisk, Voldemort in the graveyard. He gets help, of course, but in the end he does it by himself. > > This leads to the next Seeker parallel. The role of a Quidditch Seeker on the team is solitary. Teammates provide support - i.e., Beaters may assist in removing obstacles that may impede the Seeker's search for the Snitch, and the Chasers and Keeper help keep the team in the game by scoring goals and preventing the opponents from scoring. But a Seeker doesn't really interact with the team during play. The Seeker must find and catch the Snitch by himself, just as Harry must face Voldemort alone. So far in the series, of course, though he has had a great deal of help getting there, Harry has faced down each Voldemort threat (Quirrelmort, Diary!Riddle and the graveyard) by himself. > > But despite being such a solitary role, the best Seeker is a team player. The Seeker should be fully aware of the progress of the game, because catching the Snitch when the team is too far behind will cost the team a victory. Harry exemplifies all of these qualities on and off the Quidditch pitch - he may dream of glory, as he does after the QWC, but he is a true team player. In the PoA Ravenclaw match, Harry sees the Snitch but deliberately avoids catching it, choosing instead to divert Cho's attention because Gryffindor was down by more than 150 points. Compare this to Viktor Krum's decision to end the QWC on his own terms, even though he seals Bulgaria's loss to Ireland. This preserved his own status as the most brilliant Seeker, and though it could be interpreted as sparing his team the ignominy of a worse defeat, he snatched any hope Bulgaria might have had of pulling off a stunning comeback. I don't think Harry would ever do that - in my mind, he would always give his team a chance for victory, even though things might seem hopeless. > > As an example, in PS/SS Harry is able to get the Stone because he doesn't want it for himself. He recognizes immediately that the issue is greater than the Stone itself. In countering Hermione's argument that he should not go through the trapdoor because he might be expelled, Harry states, "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the Stone, Voldemort's coming back! There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! . . . . Losing points doesn't matter anymore. D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor wins the House Cup?" (PS?SS ch. 16). He's not avenging the death of his parents, and he's not doing it for the glory. Unlike Krum, Harry won't catch the Snitch, or face down Voldemort, just to get glory for himself. > I agree with what you are saying about Harry/Krum/Voldemort, and it got me thinking about the other two seekers that Harry encounters- Cedric and Cho. I really can't think of anything very profound, except that Cedric's death could be seen as representing the consequences (albeit slightly extreme) of "seeking", and that Harry, in his single-minded pursuit of Cho for the Yule Ball, finally realises that there are *other* females nearby, ie Ginny and Hermione (I'm not a SHIPper, so I won't expand). > BEATERS > > The Beaters' job, in one sentence, is to create chaos. During a match, the Beaters disrupt their opponents but have no offensive role. (QttA states that there is no indication that Beaters have ever handled the Quaffle.) The Beaters guard their teammates from the Bludgers and, as Oliver Wood points out, they also "try and knock them toward the other team." They are the only players that carry implements - and the clubs are themselves weapons. In essence, the Beaters to act as rogues to protect their team: they're *supposed* to aim Bludgers (which, as they're 10-inch iron balls, more resemble weapons more than implements of sport) at their opponents, and if the opponents are hurt, well, that's just a part of the game. Using Debbie's criteria, a few other "Beaters" we've seen, IMO, are Crouch and the Aurors when he authorised the use of the Unforgivable Curses- while not illegal, this went against Moody's moral code- "rule-breaking", so to speak- again highlighting the point Debbie illustrated. However, another interpretation of "Beaters" are those who don't have a direct offensive role, but work in the background in order to give their team an advantage, and also deflecting danger from the Chasers and Seekers. I see Snape as being this sort of Beater- in PS, he protects Harry from Quirrel's "Bludger", by counteracting the latter's curse. In GoF, he emerges as one of Dumbledore's most trusted allies, and I suspect that his later role in the War will be very covert, but will ultimately be of great importance in ensuring a victory. In this reasoning (and I didn't originally have this in mind), the Dursleys are also Beaters. They provide protection (though unwillingly), and thus ensure Harry's survival. (Hmm, I didn't mean to come up with that, but it works in my mind!) > CHASERS All I want to say is that I agree totally with Debbie's analysis of the role of Chasers > KEEPER > > This position is the most enigmatic to date. We've seen very little of the Keeper during matches. Moreover, Oliver Wood as a character seems mostly intended as a humorous take on the fanatical coach whose sole focus in life is winning at all costs. Wood's lack of any significant future role in the books seems to be confirmed by his current job as reserve Keeper for a professional Quidditch team. > > But we do know this: a Keeper is the last line of defense for the team against goal-scoring. Like the Chasers, the Keeper's role is to keep the team in the game. Lee Jordan described Wood's spectacular grab of a Slytherin penalty shot in PoA, appropriately, as a "save." Also, though we have not seen this happen so far in the series, I expect that a Keeper that is truly worth his salt would, when given a choice between being smacked by a Bludger and allowing the Quaffle to go through the goalposts, choose to make the save. Thus, the Keeper's role can be seen as sacrificial - taking one for the team, as it were. > > If the Keeper is likely to be called upon to sacrifice to the cause of the team, then the selection of the next Keeper may foreshadow that character's role in the war ahead. Perhaps the new Keeper - whoever it is - will be put in a situation at some point in the series where he/she will be called upon to choose whether to save himself (or herself) or to sacrifice to allow Harry to continue the quest to defeat Voldemort. > > Ron is often suggested as a candidate for sacrifice, based on his chess sacrifice in PS/SS. Funny, though, I never thought of him as a Quidditch player. I tend to think his development as a character would be better served by his *not* joining the Quidditch team, as it seems too easy a solution for his jealousy and need for attention, which has been carefully developed through the first four books. So, IMO, the field is wide open for this position. Although I actually believe that Ron *will* be the new Gryffindor Keeper, I actually see the most significant "Keeper" in the series as Dumbledore- during Voldemort's first rise to power, Hogwarts was the only perceived certainty of safety, and Dumbledore was the only wizard that Voldemort feared. This agrees strongly with the "Keeper" being the "last line of defence". The Keeper also has the advantage of being able to perceive the *whole* of the match in progress- Seekers have to focus on the Snitch, the Beaters on the Bludgers, and the Chasers on the Quaffle, while the Keeper can have an eye on everyone. This means that the Keeper, for the most part, is a passive role, however when it comes time to protect that goal, they take a more aggressive stance. This, in my mind, is very much like Dumbledore. It wasn't until the end of the GoF did we see Dumbledore get angry- but when he had to, he did what was necessary. Dumbledore also keeps a watchful eye, not only on Harry, but also the whole WW- in CoS, he appears to know that Harry is under the Cloak, he reads the Muggle Newspapers, and he has spies that keep him informed. In my opinion, Dumbledore is the ultimate "Keeper" in the series. That is all I am going to touch in this post. Once again, congratulations Debbie- I really enjoyed your analysis. See ya Roo, who really enjoyed using the Quidditch metaphor, and referring to people as "Seekeres", "Beaters", etc From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Thu Dec 12 14:04:08 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:04:08 -0000 Subject: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: <1241242486.20021212095754@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48199 --- In HPforGrownups, Sasha HP wrote: > Greetings! > [snip] > We know that dining tables of all four Houses are of the > same size (well, it's not said in any of the books, but it's > a reasonable assumption, isn't it?). But do we know that they are all equally full? > We know that there are about 12-13 teachers in Hogwarts, > no more (don't remember the actual number), which is enough > to teach 280 students, but not enough to teach the crowd of > 1000 students. I would say that with the way Hogwarts seems to organise its classes, in groups of 10 or 20 for compulsory subjects, and small groups for other subjects, 13 teachers would not really suffice for 280 students - at least not if the teachers have such absurd expectations as to have time to sleep and eat outside the weekends. Moreover, I disagree that we know that there are no more than 12-13 teachers. That no more teachers are not mentioned is not conclusive proof that there are no more teachers. Do not forget that at least one professor has been mentioned as professor of her department - I think it was Professor Sinistra who was referred to as head of the astronomy-department in one book (or it could be Professor Vector and arithmancy - I do not recall clearly who it was right now, and do not have access to my sources). Head of department sounds like a somewhat excessive title if she is the only person in the department. [snip] > Probably there are other clues as well, and new ones are > likely to come. But current evidence is that number of > students in Hogwarts is 280... er... no, now it's 279. [snip] I do not feel that the evidence is conclusive in any one direction, but a suspicion has been forming in my mind lately - that JKR's perception of the number of students at Hogwarts changed, probably during the process of writing PoA. While there still is evidence in the later books that support lower number of students, this seems as far as I can see to be facts that were set rather firmly in the early books, and which it would be difficult to alter in a credible fashion - she probably couldn't have suddenly coughed up 25 extra Gryffindor 3rd-years for that boggart-lesson without making it look contrived. But it is in PoA and GoF we get the high numbers, which to me seem difficult to explain without accepting that they represent a number of students significantly higher than the 280 suggested by PS and CoS. Best regards Christian Stub? From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 13:35:42 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:35:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: <54.461cd3d.2b299f00@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021212133542.79076.qmail@web14611.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48200 srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote: Chapter Four pgs 58-59, the witch speaking to Ron about Scabbers discusses the lack of powers the rat has. My opinion is that Peter Pettigrew is no more than a mediocre wizard who by his own desires to out-do James and Sirius and by the influence of the dark lord, found himself personally empowered. But, it seems from PoA and GoF that Peter merely acts out the plans made by Voldemort. ME: but that is just it, it is not Pettigrew's magical powers that make him so dangerous (though we must assume that the Dark Lord in some respects enhanced those powers a bit, he did kill a dozen muggles with one curse), but his personal attributes that have nothing to do with magic. We all want to picture Peter as a helpless hack who can only follow orders, but this man has done ALOT of damage to statisfy himself. He is no Barty Crouch Jr, Pettigrew is out for himself, and himself ONLY. He has all those ratlike qualities, sneaky, resourceful, and in the symbolic sense of a rat, he is a natural spy, betrayer, putting self above all else. Voldemort himself says that PP can be quite deceicing AND convincing when he wants to. He knows how to manipulate people's feelings to help himself (don't think that his comment about James' "understanding" did not prompy Harry's decision to spare PP) ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lrcjestes at earthlink.net Thu Dec 12 15:44:17 2002 From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:44:17 -0000 Subject: James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape In-Reply-To: <55.334f1076.2b290f4a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnde1 at a... wrote: > Maria asked, > > > And another question concerning Lupin: why does Snape hate him? > > > > Does he just really, really detest werewolves? Or does he hate "James and > > everyone who was friends with him" up to the point where the hatred is > > blind? Or did something else happen that we don't know about? > > > > Snape didn't know Lupin was a werewolf until after the prank. Afterwards there are a whole slew of reasons for Snape to hate Lupin, the least of which was the fact that Lupin was a werewolf, although that prejudice was probably there. First and foremost is that Lupin was allowed to stay at Hogwarts. Snape isn't the type to suffer any infraction of any rules gladly. He resents the special treatment that Lupin gets from Dumbledore. He resents that the pranksters were not expelled or worse, he hates the fact that he was the one threatened about not revealing what Lupin was. This is an event that really stuck in Snape's mind as Gryffindor favoritism generated by the popularity of those involved. Then for Lupin to be allowed to teach at Hogwarts and teach a subject he considers himself an expert in was simply too much. He trusts and obeys Dumbledore, but he doesn't like it one little bit and he transfers that resentment (with a dash of left over resentment from the days of the prank) into hatred for Lupin. > >But, being Snape, he is slow to let go of a grudge, which is > (IMO) why he "outed" Lupin to the Slytherins, leading to Lupin's resignation. > Of course, he might also feel that a werewolf who can't be trusted to take > his potion every month is not an appropriate member of a boarding school > teaching staff, and this was his way of making sure Lupin left. (Snape has a > point there - Lupin did neglect to take his potion, and could have easily > killed - or worse - a student. All very true. > I hope there will come a time when Snape will be able to let go of this and > perhaps he and Lupin will be able to be civil to one another (friendship may > be asking a bit much ). Now he knows that he doesn't really have any > reason to resent Lupin, I'm hoping his resentment will wear off eventually. > Lupin strikes me as the sort of person who would be happy to let bygones be > bygones with Snape, and offer his hand in friendship if an opportunity arose. Ahhhh, but he does still have loads of reasons to resent Lupin and Sirius. I doubt this resentment will wear off anytime soon. He just doesn't seem to be the type to let bygones be bygones. He will carry this resentment until something happens to allow Remus and Sirius to earn his trust back. Short of saving his life I can't imagine anything that might be good enough, and I'm not even sure that would do it. Carole From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Dec 12 15:54:34 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:54:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which friend? Message-ID: <15926466.1039708474245.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48202 > bboy_mn adds: > Only one small flaw in the Creevey scenario.... Why? Why would one of
> the Creevey brothers betray Harry?
I agree, as it stands now, neither Creevey brother has reason to betray Harry. Something, and something big, would have to happen to turn Colin (or Dennis) from the "Harry is the greatest" camp to the "I will sell Harry's soul to Voldemort" camp. > The only reason I can think of is if Harry was somehow involved in the
> death of the other Creevey brother.
Exactly. Why two Creevey brothers at all? There's an extra there for "kill the spare" Rowling to do away with and leave the other with a grudge big enough to turn hero worship into hatred. I have a coupe of theories there, one being that one Creevey brother dies in a way that either saves Harry or he thinks he's saving Harry. Second, it could just be another wrong place, wrong time thing. My money's on Dennis dying (he's so tiny and all, you know, it would be more dramatic) with Colin left to grieve and seek revenge. Whether it turns into revenge on Voldemort or revenge on Harry will be a matter of the circumstances surrounding the Creevey death. I'm still not entirely certain whether the remaining brother will betray or not. But I do think one will die, it just seems to convenient having two of them. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaityf at jorsm.com Thu Dec 12 16:09:50 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:09:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021212092451.038bfe48@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48203 Darla wrote: >There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of >money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several occasions >(i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they >blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? Corinth replied: >I didn't see it as blowing the money on a just-for-fun vacation. If >I remember correctly (sorry, no books at my disposal), they traveled >in order to see Bill, whom they hadn't see in two or three years. >Why waste the money on luxury items that the family has done >perfectly well without if they can see their oldest son, and get a >vacation in the process? bboy_mn comments: >I'm inclinded to agree with Corinth, spending the money on a vaction >to visit their son and to give the kids an experience that they would >remember for a lifetime is hardly 'blowing it'. > > They didn't just hold on to it and let in nickle and dime away until >it was gone, the did something which to them was spectacular. A once >in a lifetime opportunity to give their kids something big, special, >and memorable. It may not have been the most finacially sound choice, >but by much deeper more heartfelt standards I feel it was the better >choice. I think JKR is doing more with this vacation than what we see at this point. Certainly the trip is needed to get the story started -- without the picture of Scabbers sitting on Ron's shoulders, Sirius wouldn't go to Hogwarts, etc., It wouldn't surprise me to learn too that JKR used it to tell us something about the Weasley family and their values. However, I think there's even more to it than that and I'm sure we'll be finding out what that is later. I'm sure that the trip was in some way related to what Arthur really does at the Ministry of Magic. Arthur works in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office, but then some things don't make sense about what he does. For one thing, after the Quidditch World Cup at which the Dark Mark appeared, Molly comments to the Weasley children: "Your father hasn't had to go into the office on weekends since the days of You-Know-Who." Why is Arthur's presence required at the Ministry? Are they so short of help that people from every single department must come into the office? That doesn't make sense. Also, in PoA, Ron tells Harry that his dad had to visit Azkaban once. Why? Was he visiting friends? That seems odd. What would Arthur be doing there? Finally, according to _Magical Worlds of Harry Potter_ by David Colbert, many scholars believe Egypt to be the origin of magical knowledge, and Hermione also mentions how fascinating Egyptian wizards were. Another link to Egypt is the scarab or dung beetle, which the kids have used in potions class and which symbolized immortality. And what is Voldemort after? (Wouldn't surprise me if Egypt turns out to be the place the kids will visit outside of Hogwarts.) I really do think that the Weasleys didn't win this money at all, that it came from the MOM and that Arthur was on official business in Egypt. Of course, all this could be coincidence that is just fun to think about, but I don't think so. I think there's something about Arthur's past (and present) that explains the deep animosity between him and Lucius. I think Arthur truly loves Muggles and is fascinated by them and that attitude makes a perfect cover for whatever it is he actually does. I think he's much more significant than he appears to be on the surface. bboy_mn again: >Now a related but slightly different subject. >It's true that Hermione said Ron was jealous, but the only >conversation where Ron gets to speak for himself reveals different >feeling if you analyse it objectively. Well, aside from the fact that analyzing literature in a completely objective way is near impossible, I still might agree that jealousy is not the only thing Ron was feeling. I do, however, think that was part of it. bboy_mn: >It reveals that Ron felt like >his friendship had been betrayed. So, if the is foreshadowing, it will >be in Ron feeling deeply betrayed by Harry again, and these >circumstances will open Ron up to manipulation by other people. This is certainly possible, but I also think that it's Ron's frustration with his position, financial and otherwise, that could lead to his being manipulated. When I think of Ron being manipulated, I always think of it as coming from something more "innocent" than jealousy or sense of betrayal. With both jealousy and a sense of betrayal, a person may have a feeling of wanting to get even with someone. I don't think that's true of the frustration with lack of money. If Ron is growing more and more bitter about his position, he doesn't necessarily want to be better than anyone else or get even with anyone. It's more of a self-comparison than a comparison with others. I hope that makes sense to someone. He just wants to feel good about himself, but he doesn't need to hurt someone or see someone fall in order to get that feeling. >But I >don't think for a second that Ron will ever really truly go over to >the dark side. He will go through a period where his judgement may be >clouded by emotion, and there for easy to manipulate, but when it gets >right down to it, Ron will return to his true nature. That's exactly what I think. It's also what makes me sometimes think that he could end up sacrificing himself at the end, just as he does in the chess game in PS/SS. If he does get manipulated, I would say he'd figure it out and do what needed to be done in order for the good side to win, even if it meant self sacrifice. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 12 16:10:55 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:10:55 -0000 Subject: James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "siriusgeologist " wrote: This is an > event that really stuck in Snape's mind as Gryffindor favoritism > generated by the popularity of those involved. I know it's been speculated that Snape feels there is Gryffindor favoritism. But is there really canon for that? He thinks there is *Harry* favoritism. It would be surprising if there weren't, since Dumbledore himself predicts it in the very first chapter of Book One. But would Snape be on such good terms with McGonagall if he thought her House was always favored over his? Pippin From wynnde1 at aol.com Thu Dec 12 16:17:44 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:17:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape Message-ID: <188.127b170f.2b2a10a8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48205 Maria wrote: >Your arguments make sense, all except one. How could Snape think that Lupin > planned the Prank along with S and J? I mean, that automatically means that Lupin >planned to become a murderer! Even Snape, who hates James' guts along with all >James' friends, couldn't think that Lupin would plan to eat somebody. No, I just >don't understand it. ::stares, puzzled, at the computer screen:: Now me: Well, whether it "makes sense" or not, this is the one bit of my argument which is really easy to defend - It's very clear in canon: *** Chapter 18, PoA "So that's why Snape doesn't like you," said Harry slowly, "because he thought you were in on the joke?" "That's right," sneered a cold voice from the wall behind Lupin. Severus Snape was pulling off the Invisibility Cloak, his wand pointing directly at Lupin. *** Snape himself *says* that this is why he doesn't like Lupin. And, after all, Lupin is a *werewolf*. From what we've seen in canon, most people think they are dangerous and evil. Even when not "transformed." Ron had a violent negative reaction to Lupin earlier in the same chapter quoted above. ("Get away from me werewolf"). *We* know (or most of us believe, anyway) that Lupin is a sweet and gentle soul who is not dangerous or evil, and who would never deliberately harm someone. But this does not seem to be the majority opinion in the WW - quite the opposite, after all. And, although we are led to believe that James and Co. are the "good guys", so it doesn't make sense that Lupin would willingly become a murderer, I think that murdering is just one of the things which is commonly expected of werewolves, in the WW public view, anyway. Also, at this point Snape believes Sirius to be a psychotic, evil mass murderer who has spent the past several months trying to kill Harry AND he belives that Lupin has been helping him get into the castle,. (Chapter 9, PoA - Snape: "It seems - almost impossible - that Black could have entered the school without inside help. I did express my concerns when you appointed -" . . . it's my belief that Snape is referring to Lupin here). So it is clear that Snape did believe Lupin was in on the prank, and thinks that he is now trying to harm Harry. And, for the record, I didn't say that Sirius and James planned the prank. I think it was purely Sirius - probably something done on a whim (not premeditated. I hope not, anyway. That would *really* be something for the Sirius apologists to explain away ). It has always seemed to me that James found out just in the nick of time to rush in and save Severus' life. :-) Wendy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wcoreyjr at wi.rr.com Thu Dec 12 16:16:06 2002 From: wcoreyjr at wi.rr.com (Bill Corey Jr.) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:16:06 -0600 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? References: <1039682534.1827.75744.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002701c2a1f9$c67043d0$39e4a018@gateway> No: HPFGUIDX 48206 On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:17:49, Melody " said: > We all know the creed of Voldemort proclaimed by Quirrell in the > mirror room. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and > those to weak to seek it." (PS/SS Ch 17) > The key to this statement is the word "seek". Why is it that word > changes everything? A basic non-Potter view of seeking is...wait let > me find the dictionary..."to try and obtain." Nothing wrong with > that, is there? We all seek our breakfast every morning. And yet, > the HP series bad guy creed seems to imply that seeking is wrong. > Our little hero is a *Seeker*. He plays a game where his whole > purpose is to have complete tunnel vision for one individual object > that is hard to catch. Hmmm, see any parallels? Now me: Although this is a very interesting double-usage of the word "seek" (and a good catch, I might add... well done!), I don't think the emphasis in LV's creed should be placed on "seek", but rather on "weak". LV assumes that if a wizard that does not possess power, then he is weak because he did not choose to single-mindedly seek it. While this makes sense from a purely magical PoV (and, therefore, from LV's PoV), it does not account for the other aspects of a person's worth: honor, honesty, friendship, love, etc. All of this makes perfect sense for LV, because he places no value in these abstracts... and therefore anyone who allows them to interfere with their pursuit of power is "weak". A perfect example of what single-mindedness can do is presented in PoA, when Hagrid is attempting to cobble together a defense for Buckbeak. Harry is so wrapped up in his coming Quidditch match that he completely forgets about Buckbeak's case and fails to provide what very well could have been the crucial bit of evidence to save Buckbeak's life. Because Harry was so intently focused on Quidditch and the coming match with Slytherin, he forgot his promise to Hagrid and failed him. Now, let's face it, this is a perfectly natural thing to happen to a 13 year old boy (heck, it's natural for any of us!). Is Harry taking a step towards becoming eeeeevil because he lost his sense of priority? Certainly not... but perhaps he did learn an important lesson about what's truly important. In summary, it's not the seeking that's wrong... it's the seeking *to the exclusion of all else* that is wrong. One other quick note about LV's creed: It seems to me that, if I were trying to entice someone to help me (as LV plainly was trying to convince H in PS/SS), I would do my best to convince him that I'm "not such a bad guy after all", for instance, by explaining my non-eeeevil nature. In this case, LV does this by postulating (in a very philosophical way, which is perhaps not the best tack to take with an 11-year-old) that there is no evil or good, but only power. I am forcibly reminded of a lyric from a song by Don Henley called "The Garden of Allah": Because there is no wrong, There is no right, And I sleep very well at night. With regards and salutations, Bill Corey Jr. ((otherwise known as The Artist Formerly Known As nightfall_42), who still thinks that Quidditch is far cooler than curling and should be made into the next Olympic sport, as soon as we figure out how to make a flying broom or two) From dorigen at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 16:41:14 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:41:14 +0000 Subject: About Werewolves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48207 I am a great admirer of Remus Lupin, but the following has occurred to me: Lupin is a knowledgeable, skilled, and sensitive teacher, an ethical person, polite, amusing, and generally pleasant to be around. He's admired by his colleagues (for example, Madame Pomfrey and Professor McGonigall) and by his students. Because of these traits, his students, some of his teachers, and the reader are inclined to disregard the fact that he's also a werewolf. The problem with this is that: 1) Werewolves, when transformed, are very dangerous. They have little or no mind or self-control, they are likely to attack anyone they encounter, and if the person they attack doesn't die then he or she will probably become a werewolf too. 2) Until the invention of the potion Lupin takes, which was recent enough that he didn't have it during his childhood, there was no way to control the transformation. Presumably werewolves either were locked up or ran away to uninhabited areas during their transformation. 3) Hagrid (I think) says there are werewolves in the Forbidden Forest. If these werewolves live there, they're probably surviving on hunting and gathering, live in trees or caves, etc. and are probably not safe people to encounter even when not transformed. My point in this is that the widespread fear of werewolves is not merely bigotry but is based on an actual danger. That danger can be dealt with (if I were in the Ministry of Magic, I'd arrange for secure, available Werewolf Sanctuaries, open every full moon, for any werewolf who needed it, no hassles, no questions, no charge), but it *is* a danger, and the parents who raised a stink when they heard about Lupin were not just being Politically Incorrect. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Dec 12 17:09:15 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:09:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on PoA Snape & What Snape Knew Re-Post, was Snap... Message-ID: <193.122ebfd1.2b2a1cbb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48208 Amanda quotes Pickle Jimmy: > > So, now my point: Read the "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" > > chapter of PoA and put yourself in Snapes shoes. Then see how long > > you could have remained silent for before tearing of the invisibility > > cloak and yelling "Ha Haaa, I knew it!!!" Amanda: > (you oldies *knew* this was coming, didn't you...?) > > > Snape did not hear the part about the Marauders creating the map. He does > hear Lupin identifying their aliases. However, he does not hear what their > animagus forms were. > > >****HERE is where Snape reveals himself to the others in the Shack. Thus >far, the only new thing he has heard is that his old enemies, whom we >now call the Marauders, were unregistered animagi, and that they wrote >the map which so nastily insulted him earlier. I know I'm going to regret this, O Revered Arch L.O.O.N., but don't these two paragraphs contradict each other? Snape doesn't hear Lupin's original explanation that they created the Map (just before he enters) but *does* hear the reprise as you indicated in your original post. Eloise Fearing she's missed some subtle point and wondering if she qualifies as an 'oldie' yet, having celebrated her first anniversary yesterday. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 17:24:02 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:24:02 -0000 Subject: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < rusalka at i...> wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys > " wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants > " < > > rusalka at i...> wrote: > > > > > Pettigrew, for all his snivelling, is > > > cunning, resourceful, and very good at manipulating people when > he's > > > not having a crisis of nerves. > > > > I don't agree. What events from the story make you come to this > > conclusion? > > > > CK > > As a young man, he fooled everyone about his loyalties for at least > a year -- everyone from Dumbledore on down to his closest childhood > friends. I don't think this would have been as difficult as you are making it out to be. First of all, this is after they'd graduated Hogwarts, so he wouldn't've been around Dumbledore all that much. Second, one generally doesn't suspect friends of being eeeeevil without cause. And third, as the 'follower' of the group, described as the weakest member, it is quite reasonable to guess that either he didn't offer much input, or when he did, the others were used to less-than-stellar ideas. > When the game fell apart, he framed Sirius with remarkable > efficiency under very difficult circumstances. Yet his plan to do so was fairly simple, and he could have thought it out ahead of time... it works as a generic getaway plan. > When he ran into > Bertha Jorkins while on his way to Voldemort, he persuaded her to > accompany him alone to an isolated place, even though she had every > reason to be suspicious of him. Okay. Was looking for my book and I could NOT find where it talks about him persuading her, though I seem to remember it. D'you have the reference? CK From draco382 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 17:30:56 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382 ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:30:56 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: <15926466.1039708474245.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48210 rvotaw says: > Exactly. Why two Creevey brothers at all? There's an extra there for "kill the > spare" Rowling to do away with and leave the other with a grudge big enough to > turn hero worship into hatred. I have a coupe of theories there, one being > that one Creevey brother dies in a way that either saves Harry or he thinks > he's saving Harry. Second, it could just be another wrong place, wrong time > thing. My money's on Dennis dying (he's so tiny and all, you know, it would be > more dramatic) with Colin left to grieve and seek revenge. Whether it turns > into revenge on Voldemort or revenge on Harry will be a matter of the > circumstances surrounding the Creevey death. I think this has been mentioned before, but I see a lot of parallels between Colin Creevy and Peter Pettigrew. I believe it is Sirius (i dont have my book with me) that describes how James, Lupin and himself were often followed around by Peter (some sort of "hero worship" maybe?) and finally included him in their team. I also agree with the convenience of having a second Creevy around; If my feelings of dark foreshadowing are correct, Dennis is going to be victimized, and Colin will be set up perfectly to pull a "Pettigrew" on us. Of course, who knows what JKR has up her sleeve? my two cents, draco382 From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 17:50:25 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:50:25 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: <6.460e528.2b299145@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > Melody originally said: > > So I ask, is this inconsistent? Is the problem supposed to be the > > act of seeking on Voldemort's and Crouch Sr.'s behalf, or is it > > that they went *too* far in their seeking? > > Melody > Then Eloise responded: > > ..edited... > > My own feeling is that it's not so much the seeking in itself which > is the problem as that which is sought. In other words it ties in > with the theme of Choices. > > ...big edit... > > ~Eloise bboy_mn adds: I'm inclinded to agree with Eloise. I think you (Melody) might be putting too much emphasis on the action and not enough on the objective. The objective is Power without Conscience; power with no concept of good and evil. Power with no concern for harm, or damage. Power that seeks only more power, and to hell with anything or anyone that stands in the way. Many of us are too 'weak' to seek power in this way; too weak to seek power by destroying everyone and everything that gets in our path. Except, most of us who do have a conscience would see that as strength not weakeness; strength of character, moral fiber, a life tempered by a sense of right and wrong. To say there is no good and evil only power, is the statement of a selfish, self-centered, psychotic megalomaniac, and to believe that anyone who doesn't seek absolute god-like power is weak, only re-enforces the diagnosis of a psychotic sociopath. It is not THAT you seek, but WHAT you seek that determines the kind of person you are. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From lupinesque at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 18:04:28 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:04:28 -0000 Subject: Wands with no spells -- where magic comes from In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48212 > Alora says: > >>> > "Does that mean that the wand and it's owner are connected in some > way? Telepathy, or something of the like?" > >>> > > Dan says: > >>> > That's more or less what I think--eventually wizards and witches > become so magically skilled they don't need to say the incantation > part of certain spells anymore. I think of the incantation > (alohomora, for example) as just being a word that triggers a desired > effect in your brain, which, in turn, causes it to manifest in the > real world. > >>> > > Laura says: > I really like this idea, it makes a lot of sense. But then why did > Ron's levitating spell not work properly? Since we all know > it's "Wing-GAR-dium levi-O-sa" not "wingardium levio-SA" =) > > I don't know if the words are totally useless, because what would be > the point in them? If their only purpose is to "remind" the wizard > of the spell, then it would be much more effective for the wizard to > personailze the spells and use words they closely associated with the > desired outcome. It seems that the words are useful and sometimes necessary, but that spells also require concentration and that that can replace the words at times. It can also supplement them--words are seldom (never?) specific enough to get across meaning without context. Therefore, "Accio dictionary!" refers to a particular dictionary, and Harry (and his wand? and the dictionary?) knows which one. That's the one that comes when Summoned. (For a very old post on this subject, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/20352.) Laura again: > Which leads me into a new question. Where did magic COME from? It > seems to be somewhat natural, as it can't be strictly "learned." > (i.e. you're born magical or you're not) so it doesn't seem as if > humans created it. So then how would they have discovered how to > *use* it? And how to make and use wands? I wonder this about a lot of things, especially when I'm cooking--I mean, how did anyone ever figure out butter (someone just churned cream for an hour for the heck of it?) or baking soda or yeast? And how did we ever figure out all the other abilities that come naturally to some humans and are then developed? I suppose someone stumbled across magic the way we stumbled across the ability to drum and raise animals and sing and all those things humans have known how to do forever. Lucky thing. Amy "no relation to Drew" Z. From kmapes at uclink.berkeley.edu Thu Dec 12 18:06:16 2002 From: kmapes at uclink.berkeley.edu (ladygvorkosigan ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:06:16 -0000 Subject: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: <1241242486.20021212095754@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48213 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sasha HP wrote: > Greetings! > > We know that there were 10 total Gryffindor students in > Harry's year (prof. Lupin's Boggart lesson). > We know that there were 20 total Gryffindor and Slytherin > students in Harry's year (Flying lesson). > I know this seems like a minor point, but it's my pet peeve so I had to chime in. We do NOT know from the Boggart lesson that there are two extra students in Harry's year, despite what the fannon would have you believe otherwise. In fact, an indepth analysis of the boggart scene specifically implies that there are, in fact, only the 8 students whose names we know in Harry's year. Here's what the scene says: "'Seamus!' roared Professor Lupin. Seamus darted part Parvati. Crack! Where the mummy had been there was. . .a banshee. . . 'Riddikulus!' shouted Seamus. The banshee made a rasping noise and clutched her throat; her voice was gone. Crack! The banshee turned into a rat, which chased its tail in a circle, then- crack!- became a rattlesnake, wich slithered and writhed before - crack!- becoming a single, bloody eyeball. 'It's confused!' shouted Lupin. 'We're getting there! Dean!'" The argument I've heard is that the boggart makes two unnamed transformations, implying that there are two extra people there. Leaving aside the fact that the Boggart actually transforms three times with no apparent person spurring it (to a rat, a rattlesnake, and an eyeball--presumably one could be Hermione's worst fear, although in that case it would change dramatically between now and the final exam), the structure of the scene implies nobody else was present. Based on the fact that the "crack!" occurs not when the student waves its wand but at the point when the Boggart actually changes (e.g. AFTER Seamus runs up to Parvati, not when she waves her wand), it's clear that the sound effect illustrates that the Boggart changes, not that the Riddikulus spell is being cast. Lupin says that the Boggart is getting confused and doesn't know what to change into. If there were two (or three) extra students there whose fears the Boggart was reflecting, it would not be getting confused, it would simply be changing to meet the worst fears of the extra students in the room. Thus, it seems likely that the Boggart, instead of reacting to individuals at this point, is simply picking up on generic scary images. Additionally, the confusion comment clearly indicates that even if there were other people in the room, Lupin did not specifically direct them to face the Boggart and shout the Riddikulus curse. If this was the case, A. the Boggart definitely would have been reacting, not confused, B. we would have seen the rat, eyeball, etc. change into something funny (the way this is written it seems like too much to assume that that part of the scene is left out). Thus, were other students in the room, it's safe to say they didn't specifically tackle the Boggart. This means that at the end, when Lupin awards points to all those who tackled the Boggart he did so only to those he named (Seamus, Ron, Dean, Lavendar, and Parvati). Now, when Harry and Hermione were awarded points for correctly answering questions at the beginning, Harry was resentful becaue he thought Lupin was awarding him those points so he wouldn't feel left out. If there were other students in the class who weren't awarded any points at all, there would be no reason for Harry to think Lupin would do this. It seems clear that Hermione and Harry were the only ones who didn't face the Boggart. Judging from this scene, at leat, it appears that not only are there not likely two additional Gryffindor girls, there's probably not any extra Gryffindor boys either. And I think the complete lack of any other indication in the text supports this. Why wouldn't Harry and Ron have at least considered them as possible dates for the Yule Ball, for example? Would Rowling really have written two extra people into Gryffindor and demonstrated their presence only by a confusing, unlikely encounter with the Boggart? I, for one, would view it as quite sloppy, especially if she tries to bring those characters in later. Katie From rmm7e at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 17:56:45 2002 From: rmm7e at yahoo.com (Regina ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:56:45 -0000 Subject: James, Sirius, Lupin, Snape (Was Re: Snape, James and Harry) In-Reply-To: <20021211172337.2705.qmail@web40506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Kirilenko wrote: > And another question concerning Lupin: why does Snape hate him? It could be because Lupin got special treatment at school due to his "condition". Snape hates anyone who doesn't go by the rules. --Regina From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 18:18:42 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:18:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021212181842.19553.qmail@web21407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48215 Melody wrote: > So I wonder, why is it that it is all right for *Harry* to seek, but > not anyone else? Why is it that he is being taught it is perfectly > fine to seek after a single goal so intensely, and yet it is not all > right for Voldemort or Crouch Sr. to do such a thing? For the same reason it was all right for Harry to seek the Philsopher's Stone, but not for Quirrelmort: Motivation. Voldemort sought power to destroy, and used Dark means to get it. Crouch sought power to destroy as well - he was *far* more interested in destroying the Death Eaters than he was in Justice, IMHO. He authorized his Aurors to use the Unforgiveable curses against the Death Eaters - in other words, to use Dark magic and break their own laws. > After all what is so different from a snitch and power? > So I ask, is this inconsistent? Is the problem supposed to be the act > of seeking on Voldemort's and Crouch Sr.'s behalf, or is it that they > went *too* far in their seeking? And if the answer is that 'they went > too far', then please explain why it is ok for Harry? Is there is a > limit to how far one should go in seeking power? One should not, say, > break their arm for a silly thing like power? I see Harry's position as Seeker as an educational device. You can't blind yourself to what's going on in the rest of the game (read: life) or bad things can happen. Harry broke his arm because he forgot about Dobby's Bludger - even though he knew full well it was after him, once he caught sight of the Snitch, the rogue Bludger flew out of his mind and got him. This is a lesson for Harry. I see this and many other instances where Harry is still being formed, whereas Voldemort and Crouch Sr (among others) are "done deals". Harry is put in the position of Seeker because it is a (relatively) safe way for him to learn the dangers of single-mindedness. You can be an okay Seeker by focusing purely on the Snitch, but you can only be an *outstanding* Seeker by taking everything else into account. So to answer your original question, no, I don't think JKR is telling us that it is the *seeking* that is wrong, rather that the motivations behind the seeking must be pure, and not cause us to lose sight of the things around us. My two Knuts.... - Sherry, who thinks Melody could really use some coffee (but thanks for making me think - I'm not sure I would have been in the mood to do so today otherwise ) ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 12 19:16:17 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:16:17 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " wrote: > This view of Quirrell's statement is held up later with the > introduction of Crouch Sr. He sought after power and wanted to achieve greatness. He is presented to the reader as someone whodesired a bit too much and brought on his own downfall because of it. Not that the power he was desiring to achieve was wrong, but the fact he *sought* it. Oh his mind was bent on it. It consumed him. It drove his to focus on little else, and yet it is presented that if he was truly the one for the job, he should of just performed his job > honorably and waited for the public to recognize whether he is worthy for the job. That he is the one to have such power bestowed on him. > > But, Crouch Sr. desired the privilege to be MoM. He deeply wanted tobe so revered. He wanted it so much that he sought after the title.He did all he could to show the public that *he* was worthy of that job. That seems to be the definition of HP "seeking." That it is presented to be wrong in this series by JKR. << I think the difference is not in seeking power, but in seeking power because one sees submission as the inescapable consequence of weakness. Crouch let himself believe that the WW had no options besides fighting violence with violence or letting Voldemort win. Harry has more faith than that. He goes through the fire after 'Snape' though he recognizes he's no match for him. He stands against Voldemort in the graveyard though he knows of nothing that could possibly save him. It's not that Harry believes a miracle is going to happen (though it does) but that he believes he mustn't give up, that he must stand against evil even if it seems it will only allow evil to prevail. To believe otherwise, to say that goodness doesn't matter because there is no good choice, is to stop believing in goodness itself. There is a biblical parallel in the story of Lot's daughters. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they think that they and their father are the only humans left on earth. Rather than face extinction, they get their father drunk so he will impregnate them. Their motives are noble enough, but like Crouch, they have no faith outside what they can see for themselves, and like him, they end up corrupting their family in their effort to save it. Pippin From sjnhp at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 12 19:12:49 2002 From: sjnhp at yahoo.co.uk (Simon Nickerson) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:12:49 +0000 Subject: Binding magical contracts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48217 According to Dumbledore in GoF, putting one's name in the Goblet of Fire makes one party to a "binding magical contract", and means that you are obliged to see the Triwizard Tournament through to its conclusion. I have a number of questions about these strange contracts: (1) What form does this obligation take? (I assume it's nothing as prosaic as a Muggle law court!) What would have happened to Harry if he had simply refused to take part in the tournament? (2) Who is able to set up a magical contract? (3) How is it that you can force someone into a contract without them actually agreeing to it? (I am thinking, of course, of Harry being forced to enter the Triwizard Tournament without his consent.) (4) Isn't there a tremendous scope for abuse by dark wizards (even more than we've seen so far)? (5) Assuming that you really *are* obliged to fulfil your part of a contract, could contracts be used as a means of ensuring loyalty (to Voldemort or Dumbledore) without the drawbacks of the Imperius curse? -- Simon 'second post' Nickerson "I went on the Underground - " "Really?" said Mr Weasley eagerly. "Were there escapators?" From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 20:13:26 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsy fallon ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:13:26 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and the Problem of Money In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021212092451.038bfe48@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Carol Bainbridge wrote: > Darla wrote: > >There's been something nagging at me about the Weasleys lack of > >money. If they are so hard up, as they appear to be on several occasions > >(i.e hand-me-down robes, shortage of family owls etc), why did they > >blow the money they won in PoA on a holiday abroad? > > Corinth replied: > >I didn't see it as blowing the money on a just-for-fun vacation. If > >I remember correctly (sorry, no books at my disposal), they traveled > >in order to see Bill, whom they hadn't see in two or three years. > >Why waste the money on luxury items that the family has done > >perfectly well without if they can see their oldest son, and get a > >vacation in the process? > > bboy_mn comments: > >I'm inclinded to agree with Corinth, spending the money on a vaction > >to visit their son and to give the kids an experience that they would > >remember for a lifetime is hardly 'blowing it'. > > > > They didn't just hold on to it and let in nickle and dime away until > >it was gone, the did something which to them was spectacular. A once > >in a lifetime opportunity to give their kids something big, special, > >and memorable. It may not have been the most finacially sound choice, > >but by much deeper more heartfelt standards I feel it was the better > >choice. > > I think JKR is doing more with this vacation than what we see at this > point. Certainly the trip is needed to get the story started -- without > the picture of Scabbers sitting on Ron's shoulders, Sirius wouldn't go to > Hogwarts, etc., It wouldn't surprise me to learn too that JKR used it to > tell us something about the Weasley family and their values. However, I > think there's even more to it than that and I'm sure we'll be finding out > what that is later. I'm sure that the trip was in some way related to what > Arthur really does at the Ministry of Magic. > > Arthur works in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office, but then some things > don't make sense about what he does. For one thing, after the Quidditch > World Cup at which the Dark Mark appeared, Molly comments to the Weasley > children: "Your father hasn't had to go into the office on weekends since > the days of You-Know-Who." Why is Arthur's presence required at the > Ministry? Are they so short of help that people from every single > department must come into the office? That doesn't make sense. Also, in > PoA, Ron tells Harry that his dad had to visit Azkaban once. Why? Was he > visiting friends? That seems odd. What would Arthur be doing > there? Finally, according to _Magical Worlds of Harry Potter_ by David > Colbert, many scholars believe Egypt to be the origin of magical knowledge, > and Hermione also mentions how fascinating Egyptian wizards were. Another > link to Egypt is the scarab or dung beetle, which the kids have used in > potions class and which symbolized immortality. And what is Voldemort > after? (Wouldn't surprise me if Egypt turns out to be the place the kids > will visit outside of Hogwarts.) > > I really do think that the Weasleys didn't win this money at all, that it > came from the MOM and that Arthur was on official business in Egypt. Of > course, all this could be coincidence that is just fun to think about, but > I don't think so. I think there's something about Arthur's past (and > present) that explains the deep animosity between him and Lucius. I think > Arthur truly loves Muggles and is fascinated by them and that attitude > makes a perfect cover for whatever it is he actually does. I think he's > much more significant than he appears to be on the surface. > > bboy_mn again: > >Now a related but slightly different subject. > >It's true that Hermione said Ron was jealous, but the only > >conversation where Ron gets to speak for himself reveals different > >feeling if you analyse it objectively. > > Well, aside from the fact that analyzing literature in a completely > objective way is near impossible, I still might agree that jealousy is not > the only thing Ron was feeling. I do, however, think that was part of it. > > bboy_mn: > >It reveals that Ron felt like > >his friendship had been betrayed. So, if the is foreshadowing, it will > >be in Ron feeling deeply betrayed by Harry again, and these > >circumstances will open Ron up to manipulation by other people. > > This is certainly possible, but I also think that it's Ron's frustration > with his position, financial and otherwise, that could lead to his being > manipulated. When I think of Ron being manipulated, I always think of it > as coming from something more "innocent" than jealousy or sense of > betrayal. With both jealousy and a sense of betrayal, a person may have a > feeling of wanting to get even with someone. I don't think that's true of > the frustration with lack of money. If Ron is growing more and more bitter > about his position, he doesn't necessarily want to be better than anyone > else or get even with anyone. It's more of a self-comparison than a > comparison with others. I hope that makes sense to someone. He just wants > to feel good about himself, but he doesn't need to hurt someone or see > someone fall in order to get that feeling. > > >But I > >don't think for a second that Ron will ever really truly go over to > >the dark side. He will go through a period where his judgement may be > >clouded by emotion, and there for easy to manipulate, but when it gets > >right down to it, Ron will return to his true nature. > > That's exactly what I think. It's also what makes me sometimes think that > he could end up sacrificing himself at the end, just as he does in the > chess game in PS/SS. If he does get manipulated, I would say he'd figure > it out and do what needed to be done in order for the good side to win, > even if it meant self sacrifice. If you remember in SS, when Dumbledore is talking to Harry about the Mirror of Erised, he tells Harry that Ron is seeing what he (Ron) most desires. Ron is overshadowed by his brothers. Charlie and Bill have left Hogwarts and have great jobs. Percy was Head Boy and now works at the MoM. Fred and George are the class clowns and everyone likes them. Ron is known as Harry Potter's friend. Not just Ron Weasley. There is no Ron Weasley, only Harry's friend, Percy's brother, etc. I like the character of Ron, but I believe that he still has issues to resolve. Obviously, he's a teenager. I previously stated that IMB that the Dark Side will try and use this envy/jealousy to try to lure Ron to its side. Ron, thinking like a teenager, might use this to achieve fame and/or fortune. He will not turn to the Dark Side, but perhaps, thinking that if acts as if he has turned, he could be a spy for Dumbledore and he will help destory LV this time. If he succeeds, his name will now be known without all the other prefixes. He will be Ron Weasley, the defeator of LV. He will have the fame he desires. But don't forget, Ron is a teenager and acts and thinks like one. But I too have the nagging feeling that this will ultimately lead to Ron's demise. Betsy From Serri13 at juno.com Thu Dec 12 17:16:08 2002 From: Serri13 at juno.com (jillieroth ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:16:08 -0000 Subject: Wizard Religion/ Magic without wands In-Reply-To: <00e701c2a193$ec5dcd30$dd9ccdd1@RVotaw> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48219 > Also, one more thought I had on the magic without a wand issue... I was reading transcripts last night, and I came across this quote from JK Rowling: BBC "Red Nose Day" Online Chat Transcript ? BBC, March 12, 2001 Do you need a Wand to do Magic? 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.. Hope it helps. From probono at rapidnet.com Thu Dec 12 18:17:01 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (probonoprobono ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:17:01 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48220 draco382 wrote: > I also agree with the convenience of having a second Creevy >around; If my feelings of dark foreshadowing are correct, Dennis is >going to be victimized, and Colin will be set up perfectly to pull > a "Pettigrew" on us. > > Of course, who knows what JKR has up her sleeve? If we're looking for forshadowing of the Creevey brothers, than it might be useful to note that Oliver Wood does accuse Colin of being a Slytherin spy in CoS. It might be nothing or it could be foreshadowing, who knows? As for me...my money's also on the Creevey brothers. ;D From suzloua at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 18:14:13 2002 From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:14:13 -0000 Subject: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) References: <1039713847.3512.88894.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48221 From: Sasha HP > Ashfae wrote: A> My problem is that we tend to use the number of male A> students in Harry's year as a basis for further A> estimation, but it's entirely possible that it's an A> unusual number. Perhaps there were just less people A> sorted into Gryffindor during that particular year; A> where's the fuss? For all we know there were thirty boys A> sorted into Gryffindor the previous year, or twenty A> Ravenclaws and forty Hufflepuffs sorted into their A> respective houses while only five boys were sorted into A> Gryffindor. We don't have all the information, and an A> estimation based on that one single fact is not likely to A> be accurate. It's not a single fact. We know for sure that 5 boys were sorted into Gryffindor in Harry's year. We know that there were 10 total Gryffindor students in Harry's year (prof. Lupin's Boggart lesson). We know that there were 20 total Gryffindor and Slytherin students in Harry's year (Flying lesson). We know that dining tables of all four Houses are of the same size (well, it's not said in any of the books, but it's a reasonable assumption, isn't it?). We know that there are about 12-13 teachers in Hogwarts, no more (don't remember the actual number), which is enough to teach 280 students, but not enough to teach the crowd of 1000 students. We also have an uncanonical evidence from the MTSNBN where all four tables have equal empty space for first-years. Probably there are other clues as well, and new ones are likely to come. But current evidence is that number of students in Hogwarts is 280... er... no, now it's 279. Me: We also know that there are 20 students in Hufflepuff and Gryffindor - the earmuffs in Herbology. Maybe there's a whole bunch of Ravenclaws we dont' know about ;) Susan (whose first post this is and is scared she's doing it wrong) ________________________________________________________________________ From suzloua at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 18:39:24 2002 From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:39:24 -0000 Subject: Hermione's birthday References: <1039713847.3512.88894.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48222 <> Me: I've always thought ever since I read that that there's a much simpler explanation than all this is-Hermione-a-year-older stuff - how often do you hear parents refer to a bunch of kids from the same class as "fifteen year olds" "ten year olds" etc etc when they know there are some people in the class who are eleven or fourteen? Hell, my parents and grandparents used to round up my age all the time - if it was getting close to my birthday, they'd start calling me ten, which my nine year old self would naturally fume at ;) I think Dumbledore expects people to be eleven in first year, even though almost all will be twelve by the end of the year, and so on. Because Harry and Hermione are both in the third year, he says "two thirteen year old wizards" because it rolls off the tongue much easier than "one thirteen year old wizard and one fourteen year old witch". And of course, it's not out of the question that he wouldn't actually know - I mean, he might know Harry's birthday because of his involvement with Harry at a young age, but it's perfectly feasible he doesn't know when Hermione's is - the man would have 280-1000 kids to keep tabs on, and McGonagall's the one who keeps track of the age thing! Personally, I think Hr is the oldest, because in England (dont' ask me about Scotland though!!) anyone whose birthday falls before Aug 31 is year one, but Sept 1st onwards is year 2. You have to be the right age on day one, and after that it doesn't matter. So Hermione would have turned 11 three weeks after the previous year had started - she would have been ten when McGonagall sent the owls out for that year. She would have JUST missed being the youngest in Cho Chang's year, the '93 crew. So by the time it came around to Harry turning eleven, McGonagall had sent the owls out to the next year's flock, which Hermione was included in, because she was still 11 - this was in July 1994. She then turned twelve three weeks after the start of PS, thirteen three weeks after the start of CoS, fourteen three weeks after the start of PoA - although the MAJORITY of students were still 13 - fifteen three weeks after the start of GoF, and she's sixteen now. Oooh, which makes Ron her toyboy... but I'm not getting into the shipping thing too! Susan (who is now on post number two and is getting increasingly braver after a few weeks of reading) From illyana at mindspring.com Thu Dec 12 20:20:17 2002 From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:20:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48223 >suzanne wrote: >I don't believe that we can accept your statement as true. If I'm not >mistaken, which I often am, we can only assume that in Harry's class in >Gryffindor, there are *at least* the 5 boys that share the same dorm room >and *at least* 3 girls. There are lots of Gryffindors that are never named, >and I see no reason that some of the never-named Gryffindors belong to >Harry's class. Unless the boys in Harry's year live in two different dorm rooms, there are only five boys in his class in Gryffindor. Although we all know that JKR frequently likes to use the word "around" when stating the number of objects in a certain situation, if i remember correctly, she has never said "around five" when stating the number of four-poster beds in Harry's dorm room. The number has always stated as being just "five." Of course there are lots of Gryffindors that are never named - these books would be twice as long if JKR found it necessary to include every single Hogwarts student in the story. However, JKR likes to keep us posted on Harry's surroundings, and would obviously want to include information about who shares his dorm room (he *does* spend a lot of his time with those boys!). I would find it very strange if we learned about another boy in Harry's class in Gryffindor, because that would mean that there would have to be at least a few more extra boys who shared a dorm room separate from Harry's. Otherwise, why wouldn't this other boy just live in the same room with Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, and Seamus? illyana -- S1.3 MIL+++ RWG++# FRI++ CBG++ P&S-- f++/+++ n- $++++ 9F13, 1F22, 2F13, 3F02, 3F05, 4F01, 4F08, 4F11, 4F19 F1980 HPGCv1 a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD "What's the point in having a Honda if you can't show it off?" - Superintendent Chalmers visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc From bobafett at harbornet.com Thu Dec 12 19:20:51 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:20:51 -0800 Subject: Theory on why harry had to go home (end book 4) References: <12.2a0953a6.2b2952dc@aol.com> Message-ID: <003f01c2a213$97c8e900$54edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48224 Sixhoursahead: > Go Back Home To The Dursley's? > >you: Sirius:>Hi all- new to list... me: i think you misses the title it says (end book 4) meaning when dumbledore sent him home at the end of book four. we all know why dumbledore sent him to live with the Dursleys to begin with. It was far better for harry to live with cruel nasty buggers than to go around the magic world and become a Gilderoy Lockhart type person. Sirius:>Even in the magical community, I think J.K.R. has endeavoured to make it clear that there are many laws which are the same. Petunia Evans, now Dursley, was Harry's only living relative, so most likely the same laws apply in the magical world as in the muggle world. If this isn't the case, there are many arguments for why, although the Durselys were not the most wonderful home that could have been provided, Harry needed to go live there. Here are a few off the top of my head: >1. After Lord Voldemort's attack on Harry, Dumbledore knew that the Death >Eaters, not caught and sent to Azkaban, would surely want to kill Harry. >2. If Voldemorte regained his strength before Harry was old enough to attend >Hogwarts, he would have had an easier time finding Harry in a wizarding >household. ( The scar would have tipped anyone off as to Harry's identity.) >3. Harry's Godfather, the only other viable gaurdian at the time, was thought >to have tipped off Lord V. on the whereabouts of Lilly and James POtter... >and of course that was that whole Petter Pettigrew mess in the street that he >was also wrongfully blamed for causing. >4.Perhaps there is some twist in the plot of the books yet to come that will >explain why Dumbledore thought perhaps it was best that Harry go to a muggle >family. >Just my thoughts, >Snuffles again it sounds like your answers 1-4 are all pertaining to pre book 4 where as this thread is pertaining to the end of book 4 easy mistake ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 20:47:17 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:47:17 -0000 Subject: Neville just can't! (Re: Which friend?) In-Reply-To: <184.13572059.2b295b7a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48225 Yesterday I (Strix) wrote, on the subject of Neville: > I think he just might be an example of how history doesn't have to repeat > > itself--Pettigrew was weak and fell to Voldemort, but Neville stays > > strong. And Cheryl responded: > This is something I thought about too. History is not repeating itself > here, because of Hermione. Not the gender difference, but the fact that > instead of trying to persuade Neville to help them, Hermione paralyzed him. > After all, Neville, who's strong point is herbology, could have just as > easily solved the Devil's Snare problem. as it is, this gave Hermione two > solutions, the plant and the puzzle. What if Neville had come? Hmmm... > > Cheryl Strix again: Then he probably would have become a fourth member of their group. The fourth and weakest, just like Pettigrew. I remember my jaw dropping a few weeks ago when it occurred to me that the Devil's Snare might have been meant to be Neville's challenge. So, if he had come along, he probably would have joined The Trio. Remember how Pettigrew was accused by Sirius of always wanting the biggest, baddest friends to tag along with? It would have been easy for Neville to go along with them, or at least to keep his mouth shut, even though he didn't think they were doing the right thing. Instead he stood up to them. Now, if when Neville defied them, Hermione had stated her case instead of petrifying him, who knows what might have happened? I think that situation could have had three outcomes: (1) Neville keeps his mouth shut and goes back to bed when the Trio tell him to. (2) He stand up to them, refusing to let them go, and Hermione freezes him (the real outcome), or (3) he goes along with them. OK, so I'm not being very coherent... Strix From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Dec 12 20:49:51 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:49:51 -0000 Subject: The Quidditch Metaphor: The Role of Quidditch in HP In-Reply-To: <003e01c2a1d8$438cbd20$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48226 Debbie wrote:- > THE BROOMS >>>There can be no getting around it: Harry has the best equipment money can buy. In PS/SS he gets a top-of-the-line Nimbus 2000 and then, when it is shattered in PoA, he gets a Firebolt, the best broom in the world. Most of Harry's competition is playing with inferior equipment. Cho, for example, rides a Comet Two Sixty, which "is going to look like a joke next to the Firebolt," according to Wood, and the description of the Ravenclaw match makes clear that Cho's broom can't keep up with Harry's, though Harry acknowledges her flying skills. The Slytherins, of course, have Nimbus 2001s, which provided them with a momentary advantage over Harry until he acquired the Firebolt. But Draco, too focused on his own glory to concentrate on the task at hand, cannot put his advantage to good use and cannot catch the Snitch even though it hovers by his own ear. The conclusion: Harry has the skills to win without the best equipment. (In the PoA match against Slytherin, where Harry needs the speed of his Firebolt to catch up to Draco to get the Snitch, the reason he needs the power is telling - he had diverted his attention from looking for the Snitch to defend his teammate against an onslaught of Slytherins.)<<< I would reach the same conclusion as you. Namely that Harry has the best equipment, but he is nevertheless the most able player. I know that this does happen with sportsmen, the best players get the best equipment. An example would perhaps be Formula One Racing, where the best teams are the ones with the best cars and the best drivers. There comes a point though when it's not quite clear how much we are marvelling over the car technology and how much we are marvelling over the drivers skill. I feel that this is also true of Harry. We *know* that Harry is a natural. He was the youngest player for a century, and was discovered when using an old school broom. Why then does JKR need to give him the best broom that money will buy. The Quidditch team and indeed the whole school seem in awe of Harry's broom, but isn't this really unfair competitive advantage. To me, it almost overshadows his natural talent. Is this JKR's idea that the opposition forget how good Harry actually is because they are too busy concentrating on his broom? Ali Who would just like to thank Debbie for her amazing post, and also admit to the fact that she does not find Formula 1 racing at all interesting, but it fitted with her theory. From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Dec 12 21:00:13 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:00:13 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil) Message-ID: <46.325b998d.2b2a52dd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48227 In a message dated 12/12/2002 17:25:36 GMT Standard Time, clicketykeys at yahoo.com writes: > > When he ran into > > Bertha Jorkins while on his way to Voldemort, he persuaded her to > > accompany him alone to an isolated place, even though she had every > > reason to be suspicious of him. > > Okay. Was looking for my book and I could NOT find where it talks > about him persuading her, though I seem to remember it. D'you have the > reference? > Do you mind if I answer this one Marina? That way I can say that I agree with you without doing a 'me too'! GoF, UK HB, p568 (The Death Eaters) " But Wormtail - displaying a presence of mind I would never have expected of him - convinced Bertha Jorkins to accompany him on a night-time stroll. He overpowered her...he brought her to me." I think we have to assume that it was an isolated place if he was not to be noticed overpowering her. Plus presumably it was near to where Voldemort was hiding. I think we are being set up to underestimate Pettigrew. The teachers underestimated him (he *did* after all master the Animagus spell, extremely advanced magic, even if he did need help - and remember that Lupin, in saying that he needed a lot of help was comparing him to the two brightest students of the year); James, Lupin and Sirius underestimated him thirteen years ago; Sirius underestimated him in the Shrieking Shack (or at least on leaving the Shack) and I think the above quote suggests that probably Voldemort underestimates him. If Voldemort carries on treating him like this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Worm(tail) turned. I shall be very interested to see how Pettigrew turns out. I suspect that in some way he will come good in the end (at least partially, possibly unintentionally, probably tragically, or at least pathetically) and that will involve his upsetting some of the preconceived notions we have of him. I don't really expect a true redemption for him, but I think that he may well be instrumental in Voldemort's downfall . ~Eloise ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every time we look at it we see a different hue. (Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaityf at jorsm.com Thu Dec 12 21:14:51 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (kaityf at jorsm.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:14:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys and the Problem of Money Message-ID: <61559.208.45.99.237.1039727691.squirrel@webmail.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48228 Betsy wrote: >If you remember in SS, when Dumbledore is talking to Harry about the >Mirror of Erised, he tells Harry that Ron is seeing what he (Ron) >most desires. Ron is overshadowed by his brothers. Charlie and Bill >have left Hogwarts and have great jobs. Percy was Head Boy and now >works at the MoM. Fred and George are the class clowns and everyone >likes them. Ron is known as Harry Potter's friend. Not just Ron >Weasley. There is no Ron Weasley, only Harry's friend, Percy's >brother, etc. I remember the scene with Dumbledore very well, but I still don't see Ron as wanting to be *better than others.* I still think he just wants to be better than he is. >I like the character of Ron, but I believe that he still has >issues to resolve. Obviously, he's a teenager. I previously stated >that IMB that the Dark Side will try and use this envy/jealousy to >try to lure Ron to its side. Ron, thinking like a teenager, might use >this to achieve fame and/or fortune. I like Ron too, and I agree that he has issues to resolve. However, I really don't think that he is truly jealous of Harry or anyone else. Nor do I think that the Dark Side will try to lure him to its side. I can see him being somewhat blinded by his feelings and becoming an *unwitting* pawn in the battle, but no way can I see him even entertaining the idea of changing sides, not for any reason. Ron surely gets tired of being in Harry's shadow and of having shabby clothing, etc.; however, I think he really knows that Harry's fame and fortune have a price. We can see that in GoF after Harry defeats the dragon. Ron realizes that Harry couldn't have really wanted to enter the tournament. It's like many adolescent desires -- we can fantasize about them, but when we do that, we aren't always thinking about the sacrifices we need to make to get them and keep them. Ron may be willing to do some things to attain what his heart desires, but I don't think he'd ever entertain turning evil or betraying a friend. The only way I can see Ron doing anything harmful is if he is tricked into it, and because of his desires he would be easier to trick than Hermione (who I don't think could be tricked at all). I can even see Hermione warning Ron not to do something, but Ron doesn't always listen to Hermione. He didn't listen about the Firebolt and he didn't listen about the Tri-Wizard Tournament. However, when push comes to shove, Ron shows his true colors (as in the chess game) and I think *if* Ron does something stupid, he would be ready to sacrifice himself. >He will not turn to the Dark >Side, but perhaps, thinking that if acts as if he has turned, he >could be a spy for Dumbledore and he will help destory LV this time. >If he succeeds, his name will now be known without all the other >prefixes. He will be Ron Weasley, the defeator of LV. He will have >the fame he desires. I think Ron is perfectly capable of fantasizing about such things, but I don't think he really wants to do anything like this. Unless I'm forgetting something critical, Ron doesn't usually take the initiative in the fight against evil. He follows Harry and exhibits bravery and even the willingness for self-sacrifice. But I don't see him actually taking the lead, except in fantasizing. >But don't forget, Ron is a teenager and acts and thinks like one. >But I too have the nagging feeling that this will ultimately lead to >Ron's demise. I haven't forgotten -- in fact, it's what makes me so sure that Ron would be more likely to just fantasize about doing some great deed. I agree with you, however, about Ron's demise. I can't get past the idea that Ron is going to sacrifice himself for Harry in order for Harry to defeat Voldemort. I see a symmetry with the first book, with Ron sacrificing himself as he did in the chess game, but this time the results won't be so good, at least not for Ron. From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 21:24:12 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:24:12 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48229 Simon"What form does this obligation take? (I assume it's nothing as prosaic as a Muggle law court!) What would have happened to Harry if he had simply refused to take part in the tournament?" I think its just an 'if you sign, you must do' type of agreement. If Harry had not wanted to take part, he would have had to convince people that he had not managed to get round the charm defending the goblet. "Who is able to set up a magical contract?" Good question. I suspect that they can be set up by any powerful wizard to some degree, but the goblet is a very old artifact and may be made with more of the 'old magic'. "How is it that you can force someone into a contract without them actually agreeing to it? (I am thinking, of course, of Harry being forced to enter the Triwizard Tournament without his consent.)" I guess the magical equivilent of forging ones name. "Isn't there a tremendous scope for abuse by dark wizards (even more than we've seen so far)?" Yes, but if the goblet is unique, it may be that more modern methods can detent fruad. This also answers 5, as it would make a perfect solution for voldemort. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bobafett at harbornet.com Thu Dec 12 20:55:00 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:55:00 -0800 Subject: Bertha Jorkins & Neville Longbottom (comparison) Message-ID: <000f01c2a220$bebe7040$7cedaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48230 Hmm You know: Bertha Jorkins is referred to as very nosey and a busy body. Right away I imagine Aunt Petunia looking out her window, not all that bright, but not a bumbling fool either. I can't help but notice that after she has her memory charm placed on her Bertha is described as a forgetful bumbing lost cause who gets lost going to the bathroom. Then I think about Neville Longbottom clumsy...forgetfulll...bumbling... Why then was he placed in Gryffindor? Noting Neville's history of his parents and what happened to them, I am of the opinion Neville has a memory charm on him. I think we should "Expect great things" from him too ;) Lets hope so, cause he's just one of those characters in a story you really root for ;) BoBaFeTT From kethlenda at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 22:02:47 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:02:47 -0000 Subject: Bertha Jorkins & Neville Longbottom (comparison) In-Reply-To: <000f01c2a220$bebe7040$7cedaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: Then I think about Neville Longbottom > clumsy...forgetfulll...bumbling... > Why then was he placed in Gryffindor? > > Noting Neville's history of his parents and what happened to them, I am of the opinion Neville has a memory charm on him. I think we should "Expect great things" from him too ;) > > Lets hope so, cause he's just one of those characters in a story you really root for ;) > > BoBaFeTT I think it's highly possible that Neville is under a memory charm. (Though I don't think it's *necessary* to explain his character; I was just as clumsy and almost as absentminded at that age myself.) Either way, I think we'll find out more about Neville and his parents in the coming books, and that Neville will be involved in Big Things. And I sincerely hope they'll be GOOD Big Things. I just can't see him going bad voluntarily--he's had too much personal experience of the heartache caused by Voldemort and the DE's. BTW, I've actually heard speculation--I forget where, somewhere on the Internet--that Neville's *parents* are in fact under a spell that keeps them from regaining their minds. After all, IIRC, Lucius Malfoy is a big benefactor of St. Mungo's. It may be that their "insanity" is in fact a curse being maintained on them so they don't reveal certain information. I could totally see Neville finding this out, and summoning up all his nerve to confront Malfoy about it. Which would probably turn out badly. But now I'm writing fanfiction, so I'll shut up now. LOL. Strix From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 22:08:13 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:08:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Quidditch Metaphor: The Role of Quidditch in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021212220813.72433.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48232 Ali started by quoting Debbie's most excellent Quidditch post, and then wrote: > I would reach the same conclusion as you. Namely that Harry has the > best equipment, but he is nevertheless the most able player. I know > that this does happen with sportsmen, the best players get the best > equipment. An example would perhaps be Formula One Racing, where the > best teams are the ones with the best cars and the best drivers. > There comes a point though when it's not quite clear how much we are > marvelling over the car technology and how much we are marvelling > over the drivers skill. > > I feel that this is also true of Harry. We *know* that Harry is a > natural. He was the youngest player for a century, and was discovered > when using an old school broom. Why then does JKR need to give him > the best broom that money will buy. The Quidditch team and indeed the > whole school seem in awe of Harry's broom, but isn't this really > unfair competitive advantage. To me, it almost overshadows his > natural talent. Is this JKR's idea that the opposition forget how > good Harry actually is because they are too busy concentrating on his > broom? And *how* do the best Formula One drivers get the best cars? Sponsors! Harry has sponsors too. He doesn't buy his own brooms, he gets the first from Prof. McGonagall, who discovered him, and the second from Sirius. Sponsors who have a lot to gain from Harry's success, both on the Quidditch pitch and against Voldemort. In addition to having the best broom (and also beating the Slytherins during the short time when he does not have the best broom), I think another analogy that Debbie may have been alluding to is the fact that Harry also has the best "equipment" for fighting Voldemort - i.e. his own talents, his supporters, and his wand that happens to be the brother of Voldemort's. Thanks again, Debbie, for your wonderful analysis, which I forwarded to a friend to entice her to join this group! - Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 22:30:24 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:30:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021212223024.77156.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48233 I have a question about the nature of Boggarts. During Lupin's class, the Boggart turns into the full moon when Lupin confronts it (it's described as a silver orb or some such at this point, to obfuscate the fact that Lupin is a werewolf). Later, Lupin uses the Boggart to present Harry with a Dementor in order to practice the Patronus charm. This fake Dementor has the same effect on Harry as a real Dementor, so it works very well as an exercise. He even has to eat chocolate to shake off the effects. My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the Boggart were a real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were the real moon? I could speculate that a Dementor is a being while the moon is an object, so the Boggart!Dementor would have a greater presence than the Boggart!moon. But it seems to me that the light of the full moon has some sort of magical effect on werewolves that causes them to transform, just as Dementors have some sort of magical effect that causes people around them to relive their worst memories. If the Boggart can mimic the Dementors' magical effects when it transforms into one, then why can't it mimic the moon's magical effects as well? Dazed and confused. - Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From illyana at mindspring.com Thu Dec 12 23:02:44 2002 From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:02:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) In-Reply-To: <20021212223024.77156.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20021212223024.77156.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48234 >sherry wrote: >My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the Boggart were a >real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were the real >moon? > Hmmm... that's a good question. I'm thinking that maybe, since the Boggart!Dementor was full-size, it had the full effects of a normal Dementor. Lupin's Boggart!moon was so much smaller in comparison to the actual moon, so maybe that's why it didn't have the werewolf-transforming effects on him that the actual moon does. illyana -- S1.3 MIL+++ RWG++# FRI++ CBG++ P&S-- f++/+++ n- $++++ 9F13, 1F22, 2F13, 3F02, 3F05, 4F01, 4F08, 4F11, 4F19 F1980 HPGCv1 a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD "What's the point in having a Honda if you can't show it off?" - Superintendent Chalmers visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 12 23:38:29 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:38:29 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) References: <20021212223024.77156.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008d01c2a237$941e2620$61c87ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48235 > >sherry wrote: > >My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the Boggart were a > >real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were the real > >moon? Maybe Dementors have psychological effect and so can be simulated by Boggart, but Lupin's physical transformation is triggered by cycles of the *real* moon. So seeing Boggart as a full moon won't start the transformation, it's just a handy symbol of his fears. Irene From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 00:00:07 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999 ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:07 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: <15926466.1039708474245.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48236 Richelle wrote- > > The only reason I can think of is if Harry was somehow involved in the
> > death of the other Creevey brother.
> > Exactly. Why two Creevey brothers at all? There's an extra there for "kill the > spare" Rowling to do away with and leave the other with a grudge big enough to > turn hero worship into hatred. Good idea! In the Potterverse the only time a character has a sibling is usual when they serve a purpose. Look at the small number of known siblings - the Weasleys of course, the Patil twins, Gabrielle, Petunia, Aberforth gets a passing mention, and the creepy Creeveys. I know the large number of only children is mostly just so the books don't get too crowded with extraneous characters, but everyone serves a purpose eventually. So there must be a reason for the extra Creevey when one was definitely more than enough, IMO. Richelle wrote- I have a coupe of theories there, one being > that one Creevey brother dies in a way that either saves Harry or he thinks > he's saving Harry. Second, it could just be another wrong place, wrong time > thing. My money's on Dennis dying (he's so tiny and all, you know, it would be > more dramatic) with Colin left to grieve and seek revenge. Whether it turns > into revenge on Voldemort or revenge on Harry will be a matter of the > circumstances surrounding the Creevey death. > I have to admit to being bias to this theory since Colin just rubs me the wrong way. A hero worshipping dork who can't think for himself and is just so irritating and both Creevys fit the alleged profile of the "painful to write" death. Plus nothing is more dramatic than when love turns to hate, and to see mousy sychophant Colin or Dennis (my money's also on Dennis getting the axe and Colin going Courtney Love on everyone)go medieval with grief, how ever misplaced,sounds very interesting. Olivia Grey From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 13 02:18:42 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 02:18:42 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < > > As a young man, he fooled everyone about his loyalties for at least > > a year -- everyone from Dumbledore on down to his closest childhood > > friends. > > I don't think this would have been as difficult as you are making it > out to be. First of all, this is after they'd graduated Hogwarts, so > he wouldn't've been around Dumbledore all that much. Dumbledore wasn't just the Headmaster of Hogwarts, he was also a leader in the fight against Voldemort -- a fight that the Marauders were a part of. They may not have had as much contact with him as they did when they were students, but they were still working together. Peter must have had at least some access to Dumbledore and the "old crowd," or he would've been of no value as a spy. > Second, one > generally doesn't suspect friends of being eeeeevil without cause. Ah, but why did they not have cause to suspect him, when he was guilty as sin? Because he successfully concealed his guilt for a long time. These are people who knew him since he was eleven years old, shared a dorm with him for seven years, let him in on their deepest secrets -- and none of them had a clue what he was really up to. >And > third, as the 'follower' of the group, described as the weakest > member, it is quite reasonable to guess that either he didn't offer > much input, or when he did, the others were used to less-than- stellar > ideas. So they underestimated him. And look where it got them. > > > When the game fell apart, he framed Sirius with remarkable > > efficiency under very difficult circumstances. > > Yet his plan to do so was fairly simple, and he could have thought it > out ahead of time... it works as a generic getaway plan. It *was* a simple plan, and I consider it a great point in its favor. Simple plans are the ones that *work.* It's the twisty, over- complicated plans that come back and bite you on the ass, as many an Evil Overlord has discovered to his dismay. And simple or not, it required Peter to put on a convincing show of innocence in front of witnesses, to slice off his own finger, and to cast a very powerful destructive spell without anyone noticing and with his wand held behind his back -- all while dodging an enraged Sirius Black. Not exactly a piece of cake. > > > When he ran into > > Bertha Jorkins while on his way to Voldemort, he persuaded her to > > accompany him alone to an isolated place, even though she had every > > reason to be suspicious of him. > > Okay. Was looking for my book and I could NOT find where it talks > about him persuading her, though I seem to remember it. D'you have the > reference? > I believe Eloise has already responded to this. (Thanks, Eloise!) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From kela_bit at netvision.net.il Thu Dec 12 23:29:29 2002 From: kela_bit at netvision.net.il (Katsmall the Wise) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:29:29 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) References: <20021212223024.77156.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF91BD9.3020305@netvision.net.il> No: HPFGUIDX 48239 illyana delorean wrote: > >sherry wrote: > >My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the > Boggart were a > >real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were > the real > >moon? > > > > Hmmm... that's a good question. I'm thinking that maybe, since the > Boggart!Dementor was full-size, it had the full effects of a normal > Dementor. Lupin's Boggart!moon was so much smaller in comparison to > the actual moon, so maybe that's why it didn't have the > werewolf-transforming effects on him that the actual moon does. > > illyana Maybe it was because both Boggarts and Dementors are fear-based, while the moon is just a rock... So Boggarts have a much easier time pretending to be Dementors then pretending to be the moon. Katsmall the Wise kela_bit at netvision.net.il From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 13 00:21:37 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:21:37 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) Message-ID: <1bd.177ebe74.2b2a8211@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48240 > Sherry Garfio wrote: > My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the > Boggart were a real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the > Boggart were the real moon? > Alrighty. I have put some thought into this as well and have developed a theory. Perhaps, the Bogart does affect people as thier greatest fear would.. now before anyone says "Well then the moon should make Lupin transform", there is more. Werewolves appear on the night of a full moon in a lunar cycle. Perhaps it is not the Moon that actually causes the transformation, but that the night of the full moon coincides with the night of the transformation... see where I am going here? So, we know that Lupin goes off to the the Shrieking Shack on the evening of his transformations and assuming that the class in which the Boggart experiences take place is in the day time, there would be plenty of reasons why Lupin does not transform. Also, Lupin is a much more experienced and advanced wizard than Harry. He might be able to rationalise the fact that the Boggart is just a vision of what he fears most rather than the actual moon. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 00:52:45 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:52:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021213005245.1146.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48241 I am a Sirius-supporter to the end. I'm glad that he was not punished for the prank, but I do not understand WHY he got away with it? Maybe he didn't. Maybe he was punished, but the punishment for something like that would probably be expulsion. Plus, it seems that one of Snape's major hang-ups with Sirius, Lupin, and James, is that they all seemed to get away with (attempted) murder. It has been discussed how this may have led to Snape's irrational fury. But, what thoughts does everyone have on WHY Dumbledore let the Marauders, especially Sirius, go unpunished? Plus, I would like to note something of interest about Lupin. He is very unique among the four Marauders, besides the whole werewolf thing. Some of the biggest mysteries in the book, are about various people's histories. We know where Sirius had been for 12 years: in Azkaban, where Pettigrew was: Ron's pet rat, where James was: dead. But what is Lupin's story? Remeber how he said he never had true friends, and the greatest thing about Hogwarts was James, Sirius, and Peter? Within a few years they would all be (to him) irrevocably gone. I think that Remus has lived a very lonely existence for a long time. And I would like to know what he has been doing besides looking for a job and not visiting Harry. angela --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 13 03:07:59 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 03:07:59 -0000 Subject: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20021213005245.1146.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans wrote: > > I am a Sirius-supporter to the end. I'm glad that he was not punished for the prank, but I do not understand WHY he got away with it? Maybe he didn't. Maybe he was punished, but the punishment for something like that would probably be expulsion. << We don't know if Sirius admitted to anything except telling Snape how to get into the Willow. Suppose that Lupin told Dumbledore that Sirius wasn't in on the secret of what Lupin was? That he'd given Sirius some other story to explain why he was going out through the Willow passage? There wouldn't be any evidence that Sirius knew Lupin was a werewolf, and no one would have been able to question him about it without giving the secret away. That would have made the Prank look much more innocent. Dumbledore might well have suspected something after that, but what could he do? He was probably too preoccupied with the rise of Voldemort to keep an eye on the Marauders the way he kept an eye on Tom Riddle. The realization that Sirius had indeed known about Lupin all along would give an additional reason for Snape to lose it in the Shack and add some extra fire to Snape's "You haven't forgotten" speech in the Hospital Wing. Pippin who agrees that it's very suspicious we don't know where Lupin was all those years, and is putting money on Albania. From editor at texas.net Fri Dec 13 03:09:01 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:09:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on PoA Snape & What Snape Knew Re-Post, was Snap... References: <193.122ebfd1.2b2a1cbb@aol.com> Message-ID: <00d001c2a254$fd667ca0$7c05a6d8@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48243 Give that woman a gold star. I said: > > Snape did not hear the part about the Marauders creating the map. He does > > hear Lupin identifying their aliases. However, he does not hear what their > > animagus forms were. > > > > > >****HERE is where Snape reveals himself to the others in the Shack. Thus > >far, the only new thing he has heard is that his old enemies, whom we > >now call the Marauders, were unregistered animagi, and that they wrote > >the map which so nastily insulted him earlier. > Eloise ventured: > I know I'm going to regret this, O Revered Arch L.O.O.N., but don't these two > paragraphs contradict each other? Snape doesn't hear Lupin's original > explanation that they created the Map (just before he enters) but *does* hear > the reprise as you indicated in your original post. Caught. You're entirely correct. I was working from memory rather than the book itself, and Lupin does indeed mention again, this time in Snape's hearing, that he and the others made the map. I must figure out what L.O.O.N.s do when they trip up; I really don't want to iron anything attached to me.... However, given what I was speculating about Snape's reactions and possible rationales for them, this adds fuel to a couple of the fires, doesn't it? Which means, I suppose, that pickle jimmy was right in the first place. Oh, well. ~Amanda, duly chastened L.O.O.N. From Audra1976 at aol.com Fri Dec 13 03:40:36 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:40:36 EST Subject: Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) Message-ID: <1a2.d601fa6.2b2ab0b4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48244 srsiriusblack at aol.com writes: > Werewolves appear on the night of a full moon in a lunar cycle. Perhaps it > is > not the Moon that actually causes the transformation, but that the night of > the full moon coincides with the night of the transformation Me: Good point. I can see why this is confusing. At the end of PoA Lupin transforms when he comes out into the light of the Moon, which makes it *appear* that the moonlight triggered the transformation, however all the other evidence suggests that he does not need to be exposed to moonlight to transform. Therefore, it was just a coincidence that he transformed at that moment in PoA. We know when he was a student, Lupin was smuggled to the Shrieking Shack every month to transform. He was indoors and he still transformed. Also I assume wherever he went to transform at Hogwarts was indoors too. Didn't he say he curled up in his quarters at Hogwarts or something? So it is not just the light of the full Moon that triggers the transformation. It's "that time of the month." Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 04:30:52 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 04:30:52 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < rusalka at i...> wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys > " wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants > " < > > > As a young man, he fooled everyone about his loyalties for at > least > > > a year -- everyone from Dumbledore on down to his closest > childhood > > > friends. > > > > I don't think this would have been as difficult as you are making > it > > out to be. First of all, this is after they'd graduated Hogwarts, > so > > he wouldn't've been around Dumbledore all that much. > > Dumbledore wasn't just the Headmaster of Hogwarts, he was also a > leader in the fight against Voldemort -- a fight that the Marauders > were a part of. They may not have had as much contact with him as > they did when they were students, but they were still working > together. Peter must have had at least some access to Dumbledore > and the "old crowd," or he would've been of no value as a spy. Oh. Somehow I missed the bit about him being a spy. I thought he was just a lackey. My bad. > > > > Second, one > > generally doesn't suspect friends of being eeeeevil without cause. > > Ah, but why did they not have cause to suspect him, when he was > guilty as sin? Because he successfully concealed his guilt for a > long time. These are people who knew him since he was eleven years > old, shared a dorm with him for seven years, let him in on their > deepest secrets -- and none of them had a clue what he was really > up to. Because (as I mentioned later) they were accustomed to dismissing him. You don't /look/ for your friends to betray you, and so you miss cloes that are otherwise there - in fact, you may rationalize away any that you DO notice. > > >And > > third, as the 'follower' of the group, described as the weakest > > member, it is quite reasonable to guess that either he didn't > offer > > much input, or when he did, the others were used to less-than- > stellar > > ideas. > > So they underestimated him. And look where it got them. > *grin* I didn't say they were RIGHT to do that. ;) Clearly he wasn't quite as incompetent - or as trustworthy! - as they thought he was. > > > > > When the game fell apart, he framed Sirius with remarkable > > > efficiency under very difficult circumstances. > > > > Yet his plan to do so was fairly simple, and he could have thought > it > > out ahead of time... it works as a generic getaway plan. > > It *was* a simple plan, and I consider it a great point in its > favor. Simple plans are the ones that *work.* It's the twisty, over- > complicated plans that come back and bite you on the ass, as many an > Evil Overlord has discovered to his dismay. > > And simple or not, it required Peter to put on a convincing show of > innocence in front of witnesses, to slice off his own finger, and to > cast a very powerful destructive spell without anyone noticing and > with his wand held behind his back -- all while dodging an enraged > Sirius Black. Not exactly a piece of cake. > But he /didn't/ have to act convincingly innocent. It was an emotionally charged scene, lots of stuff going on, very chaotic - it would be nearly impossible to ask the witnesses to remember how natural Pettigrew's panic seemed, and whether the source of it was truly from fear of Sirius, or if it was from fear of his plan failing. ;) Not that I think he planned it out that well. I think a good bit of it was luck. Create confusion, fake death, run away, and pray you don't get caught. > > > When he ran into > > > Bertha Jorkins while on his way to Voldemort, he persuaded her > to > > > accompany him alone to an isolated place, even though she had > every > > > reason to be suspicious of him. > > > > Okay. Was looking for my book and I could NOT find where it talks > > about him persuading her, though I seem to remember it. D'you have > the > > reference? > > > > I believe Eloise has already responded to this. (Thanks, Eloise!) Right. Voldemort's 'persuasion' is not necessarily sweet-talk. Voldemort also said he "overpowered" her. It takes absolutely no finesse to kosh someone on the head and drag them to your boss - he'll know what to do! Now I'm getting visions of Lenny from Of Mice and Men as Pettigrew. ;) CK From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Fri Dec 13 04:37:43 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (bloubet at incanmonkey.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:37:43 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] How many students at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <1039682534.1827.75744.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <1039754262.89405@incanmonkey.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48246 Suzanne says: >If I'm not mistaken, which I often am, we can only assume that in Harry's >class in Gryffindor, there are *at least* the 5 boys that share the same dorm >room and *at least* 3 girls. There are lots of Gryffindors that are never >named, and I see no reason that some of the never-named Gryffindors belong to >Harry's class. I was actually going to post something to this effect (agreeing with you), but when I checked canon, I changed my mind. The way it's phrased in PS/SS, when Harry and the other Gryffindors are led to their room, is: "Percy directed the girls through one door to their dormitory and the boys through another. At the top of a spiral staircase -- they were obviously in one of the towers -- they found their beds at last: five four-posters hung with deep red, velvet curtains." This sounds to me like he directed ALL of the Gryffindor boys through their door, and they ALL found their beds -- five of them. I'll be happy to be talked out of this, if we can find canon to the contrary. bel From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 04:59:22 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 04:59:22 -0000 Subject: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Atherton" wrote: > Susan Comments and bboy_mn interjects: BBOY_MN: Note how I have modified your statements below. > >SUSAN: It's not a single fact. > > SUSAN: We know for sure that 5 boys were sorted into Gryffindor > in Harry's year. BBOY_MN: We only know OF five boys who were sorted into Gryffindor. > SUSAN: We know that there were 10 total Gryffindor students in > Harry's year (prof. Lupin's Boggart lesson). BBOY_MN: We know the were a total of 10 Gryffindor students accounted for in the Boggart lesson. We don't know how many were unaccounted for. > SUSAN: We know that there were 20 total Gryffindor and Slytherin > students in Harry's year (Flying lesson). BBOY_MN: We know there were 20 brooms for Gryffindor and Slytherin, but 20 brooms doesn't not necessarily equal 20 students. > SUSAN: We know that dining tables of all four Houses are of the > same size (well, it's not said in any of the books, but it's > a reasonable assumption, isn't it?). BBOY_MN: True. > SUSAN: We know that there are about 12-13 teachers in Hogwarts, > no more (don't remember the actual number), which is enough > to teach 280 students, but not enough to teach the crowd of > 1000 students. BBOY_MN: We know OF 12 to 13 teachers at Hogwarts. We do not know that there are ONLY 13 teachers. > SUSAN: We also have an uncanonical evidence from the MTSNBN where > all four tables have equal empty space for first-years. BBOY_MN: Since this is from the movie, we have to assume it was for ease of film making, not necessarily for accuracy. > SUSAN: Probably there are other clues as well, and new ones are > likely to come. But current evidence is that number of > students in Hogwarts is 280... er... no, now it's 279. BBOY_MN: Current *assumptions* indicate about 280 students. Or at least as assumed by some. > SUSAN(Me?): We also know that there are 20 students in Hufflepuff and > Gryffindor - the earmuffs in Herbology. BBOY_MN: We know that there were ABOUT 20 earmuffs which only indicates that about 20 student were in the room, not that absolutely (or even about) 20 students were in the class. > > SUSAN: Maybe there's a whole bunch of Ravenclaws we dont' know about ;) BBOY_MN: Maybe. > > Susan There is probably no issue that has received as much analysis and debate as this issue, and there is probably no issue that is divide into such strong 'camps'. The only conclusion reach so far is that we don't have enough consistent information to reach a conclusion. There are inconsistencies that can't be resolve. The only thing we can do is try to explain away these inconsistencies using our favorite theories. JKR said that there are 1,000 students. I don't take that as an absolute number. I take is as an illustration indicating the general size of the school. In other words, it's not 100 and it's not 10,000; it's vaguely in the neighborhood of 1,000 under certain not specified circumstances. That 1,000 could be the largest enrollment ever. It could be the current enrollment. It's could be the enrollment that the school is capable of handling, and not an actual student count; that is, the size of the school, not the size of the student body. Based on my intuitive guess, 1,000 means some where between 500 and 1200. Many people tend to guess an size of about 600 to 700 based on the general impression gained from reading the book. Given that the numbers are totally inconsistent, I think general impression is probably accurate relative to what JKR intended. Let's remember that she really doesn't have an obligation to make every number add up and every timeline resolve perfectly. Her real obligation is to make you believe it when you read it. If her statements are so inconsistent that they totally distract you from the story itself, then she has failed as an author. However, since millions of people love the story, I think she has done an excellent job of creating the illusion of a school size and of the size of the wizarding world. The size of the wizarding world is another number that can't be resolved. People have tried to calculate the size of the wizard's population and, like the student population, the calculations don't add up. But the real question in this regard is not what do the calculations say, but what is the impression you get from reading the story? The story itself and not the data is the truest indicator. At least, that's MY story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From elena_evenstar at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 22:17:01 2002 From: elena_evenstar at yahoo.com (Anne Palmer) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:17:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bertha Jorkins & Neville Longbottom (comparison) In-Reply-To: <000f01c2a220$bebe7040$7cedaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <20021212221701.89173.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48248 BoBaFeTT wrote: >>>>I can't help but notice that after she has her memory charm placed on her Bertha is described as a forgetful bumbing lost cause who gets lost going to the bathroom. Then I think about Neville Longbottom clumsy...forgetfulll...bumbling... Why then was he placed in Gryffindor? Noting Neville's history of his parents and what happened to them, I am of the opinion Neville has a memory charm on him. I think we should "Expect great things" from him too ;)<<<<< While the idea of Neville being under a memory charm is interesting, I'm not sure that it's plausible. I would be more likely to blame his seemingly "bumbling" personality on his nerves, both from his tyrannical Grandmother, and his parents' cruel fate. Remember, please, that it was originally thought that Neville was a squib, as he didn't show any sign of magical powers until late in life, when his uncle dropped him from a roof and he (Neville) bounced. Neville also lacks much magical talent in general, excelling only in Herbology. I do believe that Neville may, at some point, become more of a key player in the books at a later point, though. And as for the reason he was sorted into Gryffindor, if you would remember the occurence towards the end of year one, when he attempted to stand up to HRH. Well, I belive (along with Dumbledore) that that's rather courageous in and of itself. Perhaps we will see more of that in the future? "AnnaBell" From elena_evenstar at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 22:36:03 2002 From: elena_evenstar at yahoo.com (Anne Palmer) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:36:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) In-Reply-To: <20021212223024.77156.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021212223603.27562.qmail@web14502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48249 Sherry Garfio wrote: >>>>I have a question about the nature of Boggarts. During Lupin's class, the Boggart turns into the full moon when Lupin confronts it.... Later, Lupin uses the Boggart to present Harry with a Dementor in order to practice the Patronus charm. This fake Dementor has the same effect on Harry as a real Dementor.... My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the Boggart were a real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were the real moon? <<<< I think that the reason Harry was so affected by the boggart/dementor was because his fear of the dementor was so great, as well as fresh in his mind. If you'll recall, in book 4, he meets a boggart in the maze (in dementor form) and is unaffected. I think it has something to do with the level of experience the wizard has. ~Anne~ From seaducer9 at comcast.net Fri Dec 13 03:20:15 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (seaducer9) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:20:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which friend? References: Message-ID: <00bc01c2a256$8ef36c40$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48250 Richelle wrote- > > The only reason I can think of is if Harry was somehow involved > > in the death of the other Creevey brother. ME: I was doing some thinking on this today. I can't see one Creevey brother getting killed by LV or a DE and then siding with them to kill Harry. I still am a bit learey of the Creevey brothers, but I thought of a better "villian" today. Cho, it is so obvious to me now I don't know why I didn't include her in my first list. Cho had a thing for Diggory, who died in part because of Harry. I also wouldn't put it past the Death Eaters to plant the idea in Cho's head that Harry himself killed Cedric, or somehow caused his death in an effort to save his own life. She is also in a perfect position because Harry is attracted to her. It all fits together so well that it is almost too easy, and that makes me think perhaps Cho isn't the one, JKR is trying to throw us off. Drew Z. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From suzloua at hotmail.com Fri Dec 13 04:28:06 2002 From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 04:28:06 -0000 Subject: Evil Evil Fudge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48251 Upon re-reading PoA for the zillionth time, I noticed something on p156, in the Three Broomsticks scene. Old Fudge, in GoF, is adamant that Voldemort could not come back if his life depended on it. However, on p156, Fudgey says that "give him back his most faithful servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he will rise again." Now, Sirius Black, as far as Fudge is concerned, is still a bad guy, and LV's right hand man. So when Sirius escapes at the end of PoA, V has been, in Fudge's own words "given back his most faithful servant". (Of course, it turned out Barty Jr was his most faithful servant, but that doesn't cover FIE :) ) Why then, in Goblet, does Fudge find it so hard to believe V is rising again? After all, Sirius has returned to him. Another DE has been revealed in Crouch/Moody. All the signs point to it, and yet Fudge denies it? It is possible, of course, that Fudge is simply in denial because he doesn't want to believe it. But then, why did he so obviously accept the idea in the Three Broomsticks? Thoughts, anyone? Susan (who is making her first post that wasn't a reply, and is clutching her canon fearfully even as we speak) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "The Germans are a cruel race. Their operas are six hours long, and they have no word for 'fluffy' " --Edmund Blackadder [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Resqgal911 at msn.com Fri Dec 13 04:40:00 2002 From: Resqgal911 at msn.com (Tammy Bianchi) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:40:00 -0500 Subject: Question about Boggarts References: <1039735405.2773.79076.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48252 >sherry wrote: >My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the Boggart were a >real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were the real >moon? > >Then illyana wrote: >Hmmm... that's a good question. I'm thinking that maybe, since the >Boggart!Dementor was full-size, it had the full effects of a normal >Dementor. Lupin's Boggart!moon was so much smaller in comparison to >the actual moon, so maybe that's why it didn't have the >werewolf-transforming effects on him that the actual moon does. Me: Good point illyanna. I also think that Lupin was probably taking his potion at that point of the book so the moon shouldn't have affected him. Does anyone have information regarding the abilities of boggarts? If a dementor!boggart can affect someone the same as a real dementor, can it give The Kiss? Tammy From lmccabe at sonic.net Fri Dec 13 06:11:12 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 06:11:12 -0000 Subject: Evil Evil Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48253 --- wrote: > Upon re-reading PoA for the zillionth time, I noticed something on p156, in the Three Broomsticks scene. Old Fudge, in GoF, is adamant that Voldemort could not come back if his life depended on it. However, on p156, Fudgey says that "give him back his most faithful servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he will rise again." Now, Sirius Black, as far as Fudge is concerned, is still a bad guy, and LV's right hand man. So when Sirius escapes at the end of PoA, V has been, in Fudge's own words "given back his most faithful servant". (Of course, it turned out Barty Jr was his most faithful servant, but that doesn't cover FIE :) ) Why then, in Goblet, does Fudge find it so hard to believe V is rising again? After all, Sirius has returned to him. Another DE has been revealed in Crouch/Moody. All the signs point to it, and yet Fudge denies it? > > It is possible, of course, that Fudge is simply in denial because he doesn't want to believe it. But then, why did he so obviously accept the idea in the Three Broomsticks? > > Thoughts, anyone? > > Susan > (who is making her first post that wasn't a reply, and is clutching her canon fearfully even as we speak) > Susan, The reason is simple and you've nailed it in the heading: Fudge is Evil. FIE. He is. He helped railroad Sirius Black, knowing full well that Sirius was innocent. This railroading of a Dumbledore follower helped to get rid of another one of Voldy's enemies. It also helped him ascend the political ladder quickly. We don't know who the Minister of Magic was before Fudge, but it looked like it was going to be Crouch. Then when Crouch, Sr. was embarrassed by having a Death Eater son, well it landed upon Fudge. Power hungry Fudge. That's why I believe that Fudge was worried about Sirius meeting up with Harry Potter. Not that he worried about the young lad's safety, he wanted to make sure Sirius didn't tell him the truth and undermine Fudge's political standing. Fudge wanted Sirius to have the Dementor's Kiss before he could talk and possibly say something to incriminating. How would it look if the Wizarding World realized that they hadn't even tested Sirius Black's wand and that they destroyed the memories of all the Muggle eyewitnesses. I mean, who is to say that everyone of them implicated Sirius? Maybe one didn't as as he started to say something contrary to what was desired, "Obliviate!" You can't cross-examine them now can you? I think Fudge is probably a spy for Voldy. I don't think he was ever properly initiated into the DE ranks, but I think he did Voldy's bidding. The strange smile on his face at the end of GoF is worrying exactly what the price he's going to have to pay to Voldy now that he has risen again. Oh he is evil. Ever So Evil. And for Sirius to be cleared, Fudge will have to be brought down. And yes, that's what the meaning of his last name is all about. Fudging on the Truth. Athena http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/L_C_McCabe/Sirius_Blacks_Secret_ Love/ From Audra1976 at aol.com Fri Dec 13 06:36:53 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:36:53 EST Subject: Wolfsbane Potion (was: Re: Question about Boggarts) Message-ID: <7a.3311872c.2b2ada05@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48254 Resqgal911 at msn.com writes: > I also think that Lupin was probably taking his potion > at that point of the book so the moon shouldn't have affected him. That shouldn't matter. I thought the Wolfsbane Potion doesn't stop Lupin from turning into a werewolf, only makes him "safe" so he retains his mind while in werewolf form, right? Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lmccabe at sonic.net Fri Dec 13 06:50:37 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:50:37 -0800 Subject: Treatment of house-elves, Arabella Figg - revisited Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48255 nightfall_42, newbie to the list, HP enthusiast, and adamant cave-in specialist with regards to girlfriends and the like. wrote: There's one thing that strikes me as terribly relevant to the R/H ship that I think was missed above. Ron, being a member of a long line of wizards, would probably take the common WW view of treatment of house-elves as normal, whereas Hermione, born from Muggle parentage and therefore probably more closely-aligned with average Muggle mentality, would see only slavery and mistreatment. If Ron was indeed interested in Hermione, mightn't he, as a fairly intelligent young man, rightly assume that Hermione has a slanted view on the house-elf situation and simply acquiesce rather than pick a fight? As horrible as this may sound, I am oftentimes forced to act similarly when my girlfriend takes a strong position in any discussion, even if I know as fact that she's wrong. (I'm sure at least a couple of you out there understand where I'm coming from...) At first, IIRC, Ron attempts to explain to Hermione (in his usual, rather blunt way) that she's missed the point on house-elves (by the way, please forgive the lack of quotes and references... my girlfriend has absconded with my books... she's hooked), but when she sticks to her ethical guns and becomes angry, he shuts up and buys the button to end the disagreement. Sounds like a typical male reaction to an angry woman he cares about (i.e. wife, girlfriend). Remember, it was a man (Shakespeare) who wrote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." He knew what he was talking about! Athena: Yes, Nightfall, he did acquiesce at that point merely to shut her up, but later he continued to snipe at her on this very issue. Rather than recognizing that she cares deeply about this political issue that he just doesn't get, he deliberately antagonizes her. I found at least two passages regarding this: p374 Scholastic pb. As Hermione was leading Harry and Ron down to the kitchens. "Hermione!" said Ron, cottoning on. "You're trying to rope us into that spew stuff again!" "No, no, I'm not!" she said hastily. "And it's not *spew*, Ron --" "Changed the name, have you?" said Ron, frowning at her. "What are we now, then, the House-Elf Liberation Front? I'm not barging into that kitchen and trying to make them stop work, I'm not doing it --" Then on p. 449 when the Trio is at the Three Broomsticks and Harry just spoke with Bagman who was being chased by goblins - "Worrying about poor 'ickle goblins, now, are you?" Ron asked Hermione. "Thinking of starting up S.P.U.G. or something? Society for the Protection of Ugly Goblins?" ---Come 'on, that doesn't sound like he recognizes that this is something terribly important to her. To me her dedication to rid the Wizarding World of an injustice is admirable and Ron doesn't recognize her fire and dedication to this issue. He belittles it and in extension is belittling her. Not a good basis for a relationship to succeed. Onto the other subject of my heading: Arabella Figg. Docroger wrote back on Tuesday: Since we know the Dursley home is protected by Old Magic, how else would Sirius know where to find Harry when he was trying to see him on Privit Drive. I think he was staying with Arabella. Athena here: Ask yourself this, if an escaped convict came to your doorstep who happened to be an old friend what would you do? And what if this exscaped convict was in prison for betraying two of your other dearest friends which led to their deaths? Would you hex him? I would! Unless there was something compelling you to sit and listen to his story in which he has no evidence to prove his innocence. Ah, so maybe somehow he got Arabella to believe him - then what? Well, she'd then help him get a disguise, that's what! If he's a wanted man by both the Wizarding World and the Muggle cops, well change his appearance forthwith! New clothes, haircut, change the color of his eyes, etc. That's not what happened is it? Nope. He found the neighborhood Harry was living in, but couldn't find the Dursley's house. That's because it is probably unplottable for wizards, unless someone lifts the veil. I think that someone is Arabella and that she helped the Weasley boys find Privet Drive because she knew Harry was being held prisoner. I also agree with other posters regarding why Arabella didn't fix her own leg. She may not have the Touch, just as few wizards and witches have the Sight. And if she broke it in front of neighbors, they'd have insisted on taking her to the hospital to have it set. So even if she did get someone from the Wizarding World to mend the bone quickly, she'd still have to hobble around with crutches just for appearances sake. Of course, JKR needed a plotpoint to get Harry to the zoo to reveal his ability to speak Parseltongue. I personally will rebel and yell at the page if Jo Rowling makes Arabella a witch who slurped down Polyjuice Potion for fourteen odd years or so. I'm sure that Dumbledore and Figg could come up with a better long term plan than that. I think a better and simpler solution was to use an aging potion. One was described in GoF when Fred and George made one to fool the age line to enter their names in the TriWizard Tournament competition. They both took one drop each. Heck if they could make that potion up quickly and only need a drop - it doesn't sound that complicated. She could simply use that potion for years and make herself appear as a harmless little old lady that lives alone with a bunch of cats (that aren't really cats. Kneazles prowling the neighborhood and reporting back to her.) Once again the cabbage clue for PJP was also good for the Apothecary. I hope it simply signifies that there's some magical schtuff goin' on in her house. Athena For more on my wacky theories on Arabella and her full security measures including things such as owl repellents to explain why Harry never got letters from the Magical World before his acceptance letter read my fanfic: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/L_C_McCabe/Sirius_Blacks_Secret_Love/ From Malady579 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 13 07:06:10 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:06:10 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48256 Well, my melancholy fit has not lifted, and coffee does little for it Sherry...though I heard that glutting your sorrows on a morning rose or on the wealth of globed peonies can help [1]. Let's just jump in with both feet now because I am a fool to myself: Oh and the passage I am referring to constantly is this one: "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those to weak to seek it." (PS/SS Ch 17) Bill Corey Jr. wrote: >I don't think the emphasis in LV's creed should be placed on "seek", >but rather on "weak". LV assumes that if a wizard that does not >possess power, then he is weak because he did not choose to >single-mindedly seek it. Hmmm...seems we agree that the definition of "seek" in the creed is a single-minded pursuit, and that definition is implied by Voldemort. Why is that? Why do we assume that definition? Because if someone is weak, then they would falter in their pursuit and would fail if they do not pursue power in a single-minded way? That is not implied here in *this* passage. The "seeking" of power is the bad part. Just pure seeking power is bad. There is not degrees of any key word of that statement. There is "power", "weak", and "seek". So really, we have to decide on what degrees JKR means. She cannot mean that all seeking of power is bad. And all those that do not seek it are weak. There must be a degree implied here by her. It is only implied in the views of seeking JKR presents in the whole of the text that she meant "seeking" as a single-minded pursuit. And those that are unable to go on such a quest are weak. If we say that the seeking of power is bad, then politicians are up a creek without a paddle. I make this distinction because I do agree with all of you, and it would be foolish not too frankly, choices is a *big* theme in the books. What we choose to seek matters. I just think it is also implied that how we choose to seek also matters a great deal. And JKR seems to imply that the wrong way to seek is in single-minded pursuits, which if that is true, then Harry is wrong in his seeking. But y'all poke holes all over the place there, so let's move on. Sherry your turn: >Motivation. Voldemort sought power to destroy, and used Dark means to >get it. Crouch sought power to destroy as well - he was *far* more >interested in destroying the Death Eaters than he was in Justice, >IMHO. He authorized his Aurors to use the Unforgiveable curses >against the Death Eaters...**skip ahead** I see this and many other >instances where Harry is still being formed, whereas Voldemort and >Crouch Sr (among others) are "done deals". Let me first tackle you bit on "done deals." While I want to believe Voldemort is rotten to the core, I can't help but remember he *is* human. Well, a part of him I'm sure is somewhere in there. While I may kid around with Voldie becoming redeemed at the end, I do believe it is a viable option because he is still human. Maybe it is just my faith talking and maybe I believe too much in the heart of man (yes even when I am melancholy), but there is good in him I can feel it. He is not a "done deal." Yes, he and Crouch have consequences to their actions, but they have not crossed the point of no return in the realm of learning and redemption. Ok, back to seeking. You say the key to the "seeking" problem is motivation. Voldemort's problem was *why* he wanted the power. Also this is what is wrong with Crouch. I disagree. Is their motivations ever confirmed in the text? Can we say that is the problem when it is really kind of vague? Seems to me, Voldemort is not out to destroy mankind. He is out to bring himself glory at all costs. So when Voldie says he is seeking power, he *is* wanting it for the wrong reasons of self glory, but that is not evil incarnate. Self glory is not a bad thing really. It is the actions you take to get that glory that are bad. The motivation is just more dangerous than most to achieve in good light. And as for Crouch, I see his motivations of his office to be what is best for the WW and himself. I truly believe he did think the WW would benefit from his "aggressive" tactics in fighting Voldemort. If they would not, then what good would it of done for him? Can't win over the populace if their needs are not met. He took that step because he wanted the good of the people and himself, and he thought that was the way. He was wrong but not entirely because of his motivation. He was wrong because he stepped too far. Whether his desire for the MoM position or his desire for all to be safe was his motivation is still up for debate. Once again, his motivations were not bad, but his choices from the motivation are. Oh, and Sherry said in the realm of Harry: >You can't blind yourself to what's going on in the rest of the game >(read: life) or bad things can happen. Harry broke his arm because he >forgot about Dobby's Bludger - even though he knew full well it was >after him, once he caught sight of the Snitch, the rogue Bludger flew >out of his mind and got him. This is a lesson for Harry. Funny. I thought the lesson Harry learned there was not 'catch the snitch at all cost unless you get hurt' but that 'if you get hurt, don't let someone de-bone your arm'. Really that is what Harry complains about later. He is praised for his catch and even for the fact he broke his arm because of it. His captain was quite pleased. Percy even praised Harry's efforts in catching the snitch. (CoS Ch11) Harry was not scolded by his professors for going too far in his pursuits. He was rewarded with points for Gryffindor. Funny thing is the rest of the team did chastised Harry and Oliver during the match about being single-minded but relented after they won. This mentality is carried by Harry into PoA with his determination to defeat dementors. He is so driven to conquer this problem that he works voluntarily to bring this distraction away from this game. It was not the sounds of his parents nor the fact he fainted all the time that caused Harry to do this. It was the fact the dementors ruined his "seeking". Harry was not going to have that. He would not let his team down nor himself just because he has a problem. So, Harry's "seeking" of the snitch *is* an awful lot like Voldemort's and Crouch's own "seeking". It is single-minded. It is cut-throat. And it is unwavering. So then Eloise brings up these other examples of "seeking": >As far as Quidditch is concerned, I think of Krum. What do we make of >his action at the QWC? He wasn't seeking personal power or glory as >such, but to uphold the honour of his team in the face of inevitable >defeat. > >In the Second Task, the competitors had to seek their lost friends. >All sought, but the winner was the one sought with the interests of >the "lost" uppermost in his considerations, rather than thought of >personal gain. Krum: True true. His "seeking" was in honor. It was calculated, manipulative, and crafty...but in a good way. Seems he has managed to truly "seek" an object and still maintain a higher cleft of sportsmanship. I think this does show single-minded "seeking" in a good light. Well found, Eloise. Task Two: Can you honestly say that the tournament was not about winning? Winning for your school, house, country? When they were in that lake they were wanting to get their hostage first because they wanted to get back to the finish line first. No because they thought the person was in danger. Only Harry was thick enough to believe that. The object they were seeking was deeply felt, but the main goal they were after was glory. I think this example divided between the two objects being sought (hostage and finish line) very closely. Close enough I don't think they could be separated. Pippin wrote: >I think the difference is not in seeking power, but in seeking power >because one sees submission as the inescapable consequence of >weakness. Crouch let himself believe that the WW had no options >besides fighting violence with violence or letting Voldemort win. See, you do this on purpose. You always make so much sense, and it is so hard to argue against you. I do think that Voldemort is afraid of weakness and that motivates him to seek power. He does not want to be seen as weak *at all*. So if we are to say that it is this fear of weakness that is the problem with the creed, then we could also draw a parallel to Harry's fear of loosing being his motivation for seeking. Both are signs of weakness in the eyes of others. Both Voldemort and Harry do not want that stigmatism added to their image. You imply that Crouch looses faith in the ways of good and let his pursuit of destroying the evils taint his decisions. Harry on the other hand does not do this. He has more faith in the system. Well, he is young and impressionable. And in times of despair, good has never let him down. Though it has let his parents down it seems. Hmmm, that is a sad thought. Anyway, you quote the biblical passage of Lot and his daughters. They also lost faith and sought their own path. Funny Sarah does that too with Abraham. Seems a lot can be messed up when you loose faith. So is the problem with seeking occur when the seeker looses faith? Crouch lost faith in good defeating evil nobly. Voldemort lost faith that the WW would find him to be the pinnacle of existence. Sirius lost faith in the WW justice system. Hmmm, I like the trend Pippin. Harry in the other hand, has not lost faith yet. So his "seeking" is about more than lost dreams. Well actually it is motivated by Oliver Wood having lost dreams if Harry failed. So return to the above quote, "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those to weak to seek it." Hehehe, I have that memorized now verbatim. Sorry, easily amused at this hour. In light of all that has been typed, how are we to interpret this statement? If you loose faith in good and evil, there is only failure, and those too blind to see it? Melody who really, really needs to go to bed and greatly hopes this post is coherent, but she really, really liked all the replies and wanted to respond. [1] Lifted from Keats "Ode to Melancholy" From michelle.pagan at colorado.edu Fri Dec 13 06:18:52 2002 From: michelle.pagan at colorado.edu (PAGAN MICHELLE I) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:18:52 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48257 Simon Nickerson wrote: > (1) What form does this obligation take? (I assume it's nothing as > prosaic as a Muggle law court!) What would have happened to Harry if he > had simply refused to take part in the tournament? For me, this question is similar to ones I've had about the entire judicial system of the WW (if there even is one). From what we've seen with the DE "trials" (if they can even truly be called that) the system seems so arbitrary. Furthermore, (as long as we're asking law questions) -- I presume that minors in the WW are then allowing to enter into binding contracts? Much different from the muggle world (at least in the U.S.). Does no one care about the kids' competence, maturity ?::cough cough Fred and George!:: > (2) Who is able to set up a magical contract? It seems to me that anyone would be able to set up a contract, since it appears anyone (well, minors in this case) can enter into one.. > > (3) How is it that you can force someone into a contract without them > actually agreeing to it? (I am thinking, of course, of Harry being > forced to enter the Triwizard Tournament without his consent.) This question brings me to another one (I'm sorry, this post seems to add more questions instead of bringing possible answers!) -- the kids write their name on a piece of parchment and from that they are chosen? Based on what? Yes, in GoF Dumbledore (I think it was Dumbledore) says what the champions will be based upon, but how does the goblet know the characteristics of the kids? At first I was thinking, perhaps the essence of the student is in the handwriting -- but of course, Harry didn't put his name in, so that doesn't make sense. So is it purely upon the name? That seems so...arbitrary again...in the MW tons of people have the same name, I would imagine that even the smaller WW might have some common names in there... > (4) Isn't there a tremendous scope for abuse by dark wizards (even more > than we've seen so far)? Since MoM people (Crouch, etc.) were able to add an age restriction, I think there were other precautions that could have been taken that weren't. Why? Laziness, or purposefully? I suppose they were thinking that Hogwarts is such a closed off society that it would be hard for any foul play to occur -- but we all know what happens when you assume! Therefore, my answer is yes, there's tremendous scope for abuse but not so if proper precautions are taken, which they weren't in this case. > (5) >Assuming that you really *are* obliged to fulfil your part of >a contract, could contracts be used as a means of ensuring loyalty (to > Voldemort or Dumbledore) without the drawbacks of the Imperius curse? Even though Dumbledore told the students to make sure they wanted to be in the tournament for there was no backing out, I'm sure there was a way, and that it just wasn't very pleasant, and could be even painful. For that though, you must believe that any contract can be broken. If any contract can be broken, you don't have complete loyalty in the way you do when someone is under the Imperious curse. Polaris --who was also really offended by the nasty political jabs made towards the U.S. the other day and hopes (since she's a newbie) that they don't occur again. From bobafett at harbornet.com Fri Dec 13 07:22:35 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:22:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bertha Jorkins & Neville Longbottom (comparison) References: <20021212221701.89173.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901c2a278$6b7e26c0$56edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48258 BoBaFeTT wrote: >>>>I can't help but notice that after she has her memory charm placed on her Bertha is described as a forgetful bumbing lost cause who gets lost going to the bathroom. Then I think about Neville Longbottom clumsy...forgetfulll...bumbling... Why then was he placed in Gryffindor? Noting Neville's history of his parents and what happened to them, I am of the opinion Neville has a memory charm on him. I think we should "Expect great things" from him too ;)<<<<< AnnaBell wrote: >> While the idea of Neville being under a memory charm is interesting, I'm not sure that it's plausible. I would be more likely to blame his seemingly "bumbling" personality on his nerves, both from his tyrannical Grandmother, and his parents' cruel fate. Remember, please, that it was originally thought that Neville was a squib, as he didn't show any sign of magical powers until late in life, when his uncle dropped him from a roof and he (Neville) bounced. Neville also lacks much magical talent in general, excelling only in Herbology. I do believe that Neville may, at some point, become more of a key player in the books at a later point, though. And as for the reason he was sorted into Gryffindor, if you would remember the occurence towards the end of year one, when he attempted to stand up to HRH. Well, I belive (along with Dumbledore) that that's rather courageous in and of itself. Perhaps we will see more of that in the future?>> >> me (BoBaFeTT): Perhaps his memory charm as stated in the Lexicon (http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/longbottom.html) is set there for him to forget (if he had seen )what happened to his parents. It has a key to unlocking it embedded in his mind that can only be unlocked by something that has to do with herbology. That may be why he is adept in herbology. Perhaps his charm does not impair him in that subject BoBaFeTT From jodel at aol.com Fri Dec 13 07:46:01 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 02:46:01 EST Subject: Question about Boggarts Message-ID: <158.18d50a1d.2b2aea39@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48259 Sherry asks; >>My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the Boggart were a real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the Boggart were the real moon?<< Was the sun still up when the Boggart pretended to be the moon? I suspect that in Rowling's universe an werewolf doesn't change until the moon is up and the sun is *down*, If the sun is still up it canceles the lunar effect (Since the moon opposes the sun when it is full the sun usually is down -- or very nearly so -- before the moon rises.) -JOdel From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 13 06:40:23 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:40:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wolfsbane Potion (was: Re: Question about Boggarts) Message-ID: <113.1bfb2666.2b2adad7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48260 In a message dated 13/12/2002 01:38:01 Eastern Standard Time, Audra1976 at aol.com writes: > Resqgal911 at msn.com writes: > > > I also think that Lupin was probably taking his potion > > at that point of the book so the moon shouldn't have affected him. > > That shouldn't matter. I thought the Wolfsbane Potion doesn't stop Lupin > from turning into a werewolf, only makes him "safe" so he retains his mind > while in werewolf form, right? Audra, you are correct. The potion only makes Lupin harmless. If you recall he said that Snape had been brewing the potion for him all year and that he would simply curl up in his office during the transformations. The night that Lupin transforms under the moon at Hogwarts, he did not take the potion, thus was render unable to stop himself from being violent. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bobafett at harbornet.com Fri Dec 13 07:28:15 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:28:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wolfsbane Potion (was: Re: Question about Boggarts) References: <7a.3311872c.2b2ada05@aol.com> Message-ID: <001f01c2a279$34349900$56edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48261 Resqgal911 at msn.com writes: > I also think that Lupin was probably taking his potion > at that point of the book so the moon shouldn't have affected him. Audra: > That shouldn't matter. I thought the Wolfsbane Potion doesn't stop Lupin > from turning into a werewolf, only makes him "safe" so he retains his mind > while in werewolf form, right? me: Perhaps his transformation takes a bit of time. It's not the typical "american werewolf in london" instant writhing in pain, drop on the floor and sprout full on back hair right there and then. Perhaps its a slow process that takes several minutes, hours, day(s)? That's a writers discretion item I think. BoBaFeTT From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Dec 13 08:01:35 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:01:35 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " wrote: > So return to the above quote, "There is no good and evil, there is > only power, and those to weak to seek it." Hehehe, I have that > memorized now verbatim. Sorry, easily amused at this hour. In light > of all that has been typed, how are we to interpret this statement? > If you loose faith in good and evil, there is only failure, and those > too blind to see it? > > > Melody > Why do I always find the good posts just before I have to rush out of the house? Since it is *Voldemort* speaking here (via Quirrel) perhaps JKR's attitude could be more truly expressed by a direct reversal: "There is good and evil. There is not only power. Those who do not seek power are not weak." That any help? Pip!Squeak (Briefly) From illyana at mindspring.com Fri Dec 13 09:14:20 2002 From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 02:14:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) In-Reply-To: <20021212223603.27562.qmail@web14502.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20021212223603.27562.qmail@web14502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48263 >Anne wrote: >I think that the reason Harry was so affected by the >boggart/dementor was because his fear of the dementor was so great, >as well as fresh in his mind. If you'll recall, in book 4, he meets >a boggart in the maze (in dementor form) and is unaffected. I think >it has something to do with the level of experience the wizard has. Harry is not necessarily unaffected by the boggart/dementor in the maze: "Harry could hear its rattling breath; he felt clammy coldness stealing over him, but knew what he had to do...." (GOF, p. 623, US paperback version) Harry only realized that the dementor was, in fact, a boggart because his patronus made the dementor stumble a little, and he had never seen a dementor stumble. illyana -- S1.3 MIL+++ RWG++# FRI++ CBG++ P&S-- f++/+++ n- $++++ 9F13, 1F22, 2F13, 3F02, 3F05, 4F01, 4F08, 4F11, 4F19 F1980 HPGCv1 a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD "What's the point in having a Honda if you can't show it off?" - Superintendent Chalmers visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc From voldemort at tut.by Fri Dec 13 10:03:22 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Sasha Special) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:03:22 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1242629200.20021213120322@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48264 Greetings! > Steve wrote: Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We only know OF five boys who were sorted Sbyc> into Gryffindor. Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We know the were a total of 10 Gryffindor Sbyc> students accounted for in the Boggart lesson. We don't Sbyc> know how many were unaccounted for. Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We know there were 20 brooms for Gryffindor Sbyc> and Slytherin, but 20 brooms doesn't not necessarily Sbyc> equal 20 students. Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We know OF 12 to 13 teachers at Hogwarts. We Sbyc> do not know that there are ONLY 13 teachers. Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We know that there were ABOUT 20 earmuffs Sbyc> which only indicates that about 20 student were in the Sbyc> room, not that absolutely (or even about) 20 students Sbyc> were in the class. Well, let me just state that we don't know there is ONLY one Harry and ONLY one Dumbledore. Of course, Hermione said "Who is the one wizard You-Know-Who was always afraid of?", but maybe she ONLY knew ONE Dumbledore and didn't know others? Any fact can be "refuted" in such a way. Even your own existence. :) Let's return to the facts, good, solid facts: General theories are as follows: 1) 280 students. Based on Harry's class size. There are *many* canon evidences that support this point of view, in many different situations and from many points of view. Let's not forget this "many" word. 2) 800 students. Based on number of people who watch Quidditch games in Hogwarts. Also for some reason this seems to be the number that many people "intuitively" stick to. Probably because it's "between the extremes"? There are only a few canon evidences supporting this theory, *all* of those evidences are from Quidditch games - thus, a single explanation is enough to refute them all. 3) 1000 students. Based on JKR's interview. For me, this seems to be the weakest evidence of all (we all know how familiar she is with numbers - to the point of open hostility, so to say ;). There are no canon evidences to support this theory. So far the "280" theory seems to have the most number of documentary evidence. Any historian will tell you what it means: "This theory must be assumed true until proven otherwise or until other theories collect comparable amount of evidence". Classic Occam's Razor. Sbyc> The size of the wizarding world is another number that Sbyc> can't be resolved. People have tried to calculate the Sbyc> size of the wizard's population and, like the student Sbyc> population, the calculations don't add up. But the Sbyc> real question in this regard is not what do the Sbyc> calculations say, but what is the impression you get Sbyc> from reading the story? The story itself and not the Sbyc> data is the truest indicator. Sbyc> At least, that's MY story and I'm sticking to it. Beauty of the world created by author does not make it illegal to explore and investigate and research this world. "Forget the numbers and stick to your impressions" is nice for regular reader, but absolutely not enough for someone who is interested not only in storyline. This includes nearly all fanfic writers, BTW - they *must* know the world to write their stories, and frankly speaking, WW is not the friendliest world to a researcher. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From potter76 at libero.it Fri Dec 13 10:36:29 2002 From: potter76 at libero.it (Rita) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:36:29 +0100 (ora solare Europa occ.) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about Boggarts (WAS: About Werewolves) References: <1bd.177ebe74.2b2a8211@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DF9B82D.000001.41633@i3a2c5> No: HPFGUIDX 48265 > Sherry Garfio wrote: > My question, then, is this: If Harry is affected as though the > Boggart were a real Dementor, why isn't Lupin affected as though the > Boggart were the real moon? > Snuffles: Perhaps, the Bogart does affect people as thier greatest fear would.. Me: This is exactly the point, a Boggart transform into something that scares you out of your wits, in front of the Boggart you should panic because you see what you fear most ( I wonder if one is frightened by something abstract like 'pain' or 'heights', like I am, what the Boggart would turn into). Lupin is not affected by Moon!Boggart because it's not fear that make him transform but the real influence of the moon, the same influence that works on the tide. The kids in the DADA class react with fear to the Boggart, Ron in clearly panicking but then regains control and casts the Riddikulus, when Hermione finally faces the Boggart she goes all irrational and runs away crying because that's what fear does, not what McGonagall dos. So Harry should *not* be affected by Dementor!Boggart as by a real Dementor BUT if you remember, just thinking about his first encounter with D gives him the chilling sensation that caused him to faint on the train, whatsmore when he tells Lupin that his Boggart would have turned into a D Lupin said that that meant that his greatest fear is fear itself, meaning ( well, actually it's probably better to say 'implying') that D e B are somewhat related as both kind of 'represent ' fear but in different degrees, D being some dozens time worse than B. I guess this explains why Harry experience the real sensation given by a D. R. From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 13 10:17:16 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 05:17:16 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups]How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How... Message-ID: <105.220cb97d.2b2b0dac@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48266 In a message dated 13/12/2002 05:04:40 Eastern Standard Time, voldemort at tut.by writes: > 2) 800 students. Based on number of people who watch > Quidditch games in Hogwarts. Also for some reason this seems > to be the number that many people "intuitively" stick to. > Probably because it's "between the extremes"? There are only > a few canon evidences supporting this theory, *all* of those > evidences are from Quidditch games - thus, a single > explanation is enough to refute them all. Ok. I have arguments for both sides of the arguement..... but let us start here... The 70 students per household theory is supported by the Quidditch attendence if you read into Sirius's appearance at the Quidditch match. His appearance alomg with evidence in GoF is good enough to suppose that people of theVilliage of Hogsmeade may attend Quidditch matches. The sheer sound of the fans in the first three books, along with Srius's attendance of the match would support the theary ( although I do realise he appeared in dog form) that alumni and locals are allowed to attend the matches. However.... What if there are more professors and classes than have been described. There are certain core courses in the books that we know are attended by students during all seven years; however some courses appear to be only one year or two year courses. Perhaps there are courses in the 5th 6th and 7th years not yet mentioned in the books. Ok. I see the argument that only five boys and five girls are mentioned in the sorting for Gryffindore. But, what if there were more... or more in years previous and following. There is NO mention that the Sorting Hat only places a certain number of students in each house. Students are placed as they are most fitted. From this, it could be assumed that more than the mentioned numbers in the books were sorted into houses..... Or it could be argued that in Harry's year only a certain number of Witches and Wizards were of age for admittance.... We also know that there is more than one school, so we have to give a certain amount of leeway for the "accepted students" and the number who attend each year.... Thus the nhumber could vary. Well... That is a ramble... But I believe there are points made....... just tell me to shut up. I am exhausted. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 13 12:13:03 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:13:03 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys " wrote: > > Dumbledore wasn't just the Headmaster of Hogwarts, he was also a > > leader in the fight against Voldemort -- a fight that the Marauders > > were a part of. They may not have had as much contact with him as > > they did when they were students, but they were still working > > together. Peter must have had at least some access to Dumbledore > > and the "old crowd," or he would've been of no value as a spy. > > Oh. Somehow I missed the bit about him being a spy. I thought he was > just a lackey. My bad. It's easy to miss with everything else that's going on, but during the Shrieking Shack scene Sirius mentions that Peter was passing information to Voldemort for a year. > Right. Voldemort's 'persuasion' is not necessarily sweet-talk. > Voldemort also said he "overpowered" her. It takes absolutely no > finesse to kosh someone on the head and drag them to your boss - he'll > know what to do! He overpowered her *after* he persuaded her to go on a night-time stroll with him. Which only makes sense -- you can't kosh somebody on the head in a public place, and Peter and Bertha met in an inn. Whatever he did, he had to get her someplace private first. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Dec 13 12:44:30 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:44:30 -0000 Subject: Have Yourself a Tommy Riddle Christmas (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48268 Have Yourself a Tommy Riddle Christmas To the tune of Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas Dedicated with Seasons Greetings to everyone at HP4GU! Hear the original at: http://www.james-taylor.com/albums/merry.shtml THE SCENE: The Chamber of Secrets. A tall Christmas tree, brightly decorated, with many presents surrounding it, stands in the center. To the side, is a grand piano. TOM RIDDLE tickles its ivories. RIDDLE Voldy's future is far away Riddle's folks are late Chamber secrets are here today, Basilisks with their hate Have yourself a Tommy Riddle Christmas Give your soul to me Pour yourself into a magic diary >From now on Have yourself a Tommy Riddle Christmas Cast a gay AK In a flash our rivals will be blown away Soon I will become Voldemort Happy Voldy days of gore Hellacious fiends who eat death with us Steal breath with us once more I know that In the Book that will be Number Seven I will win somehow After that, we'll just have to Muggles disallow So have yourselves a Tommy Riddle Christmas now. TOM unwraps a huge package "from the Basilisk." It turns out to be a life-size statue of a Gryffindor prefect. This thoughtful gift brings a tear of gratitude to TOM'S eye. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 13:25:54 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:25:54 -0000 Subject: Evil, and Stuff (was Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " < Malady579 at h...> wrote: > Sherry your turn: > >Motivation. Voldemort sought power to destroy, and used Dark means to > >get it. Crouch sought power to destroy as well - he was *far* more > >interested in destroying the Death Eaters than he was in Justice, > >IMHO. He authorized his Aurors to use the Unforgiveable curses > >against the Death Eaters...**skip ahead** I see this and many other > >instances where Harry is still being formed, whereas Voldemort and > >Crouch Sr (among others) are "done deals". > > Let me first tackle you bit on "done deals." While I want to believe > Voldemort is rotten to the core, I can't help but remember he *is* > human. Well, a part of him I'm sure is somewhere in there. While I > may kid around with Voldie becoming redeemed at the end, I do believe > it is a viable option because he is still human. Maybe it is just my > faith talking and maybe I believe too much in the heart of man (yes > even when I am melancholy), but there is good in him I can feel it. > He is not a "done deal." Yes, he and Crouch have consequences to > their actions, but they have not crossed the point of no return in the > realm of learning and redemption. I'm not sure. First the wisp-o-mort, then the back of someone else's head and unicorn's blood, then the ugly baby, then Flatface... I think Rowling has done a pretty good job of dehumanizing Voldemort. I'm not saying that it's completely impossible to redeem him. In theory, it's still a possibility. I just wouldn't put too many eggs in that basket. > > Ok, back to seeking. You say the key to the "seeking" problem is > motivation. Voldemort's problem was *why* he wanted the power. Also > this is what is wrong with Crouch. I disagree. Is their motivations > ever confirmed in the text? Can we say that is the problem when it is > really kind of vague? Well, a person's motivations for seeking will help to determine what they will do in their, um, search. What lines they will and will not cross, etc. > > Seems to me, Voldemort is not out to destroy mankind. He is out to > bring himself glory at all costs. So when Voldie says he is seeking > power, he *is* wanting it for the wrong reasons of self glory, but > that is not evil incarnate. Self glory is not a bad thing really. Depends on who you ask. I'd say it is. The major Western religions teach "Love your neighbor as yourself," which goes against the idea of focusing on yourself. When you're willing to do ANYTHING for personal gain, and other people are of no concern to you (beyond usefulness)... YES. That is evil incarnate. > It > is the actions you take to get that glory that are bad. The > motivation is just more dangerous than most to achieve in good light. Again - motivation helps determine what actions you will take. > > And as for Crouch, I see his motivations of his office to be what is > best for the WW and himself. I truly believe he did think the WW > would benefit from his "aggressive" tactics in fighting Voldemort. If I think you have it backwards. He was out for himself first, THEN for the WW. Otherwise why would he have agreed to sneak his son out of jail? At no time do we see evidence that he believed his son was innocent. He did it to placate his wife and to assuage his own guilt. > they would not, then what good would it of done for him? Can't win > over the populace if their needs are not met. He took that step > because he wanted the good of the people and himself, and he thought > that was the way. He was wrong but not entirely because of his > motivation. He was wrong because he stepped too far. Whether his > desire for the MoM position or his desire for all to be safe was his > motivation is still up for debate. Once again, his motivations were > not bad, but his choices from the motivation are. I think there are other motivations, perhaps - vengeance sticks out in my mind as a distinct possibility. "You filth, you corrupted my son!" sort of thing. This also does not lead to healthy choices. > So, Harry's "seeking" of the snitch *is* an awful lot like Voldemort's > and Crouch's own "seeking". It is single-minded. It is cut-throat. > And it is unwavering. I wouldn't say it's cutthroat or entirely single-minded. He doesn't actively hurt others to achieve his goal; he plays by the rules, and he does his homework and basically does have a life outside Quidditch. > So then Eloise brings up these other examples of "seeking": > >In the Second Task, the competitors had to seek their lost friends. > >All sought, but the winner was the one sought with the interests of > >the "lost" uppermost in his considerations, rather than thought of > >personal gain. > > Task Two: Can you honestly say that the tournament was not about > winning? Winning for your school, house, country? When they were in > that lake they were wanting to get their hostage first because they > wanted to get back to the finish line first. No because they thought > the person was in danger. Only Harry was thick enough to believe > that. The object they were seeking was deeply felt, but the main goal > they were after was glory. I think this example divided between the > two objects being sought (hostage and finish line) very closely. > Close enough I don't think they could be separated. Well, the judges separated them! Bottom line: Harry got the most points because he showed concern for others in his seeking. > Pippin wrote: > >I think the difference is not in seeking power, but in seeking power > >because one sees submission as the inescapable consequence of > >weakness. Crouch let himself believe that the WW had no options > >besides fighting violence with violence or letting Voldemort win. > > See, you do this on purpose. You always make so much sense, and it is > so hard to argue against you. I do think that Voldemort is > afraid of weakness and that motivates him to seek power. He does not > want to be seen as weak *at all*. So if we are to say that it is this > fear of weakness that is the problem with the creed, then we could > also draw a parallel to Harry's fear of loosing being his motivation > for seeking. Both are signs of weakness in the eyes of others. I'm not sure I believe that fear of losing is the primary motivation for Harry. I think a HUGE part of it is proving - to himself and to others - that he's important on his own merits, and not just because Voldemort didn't kill him back in the day. And another part of it is that it's FUN. He enjoys the opportunity to push EVERYTHING else out of his mind for a little bit and focus on catching the Snitch. It's escapism. > So return to the above quote, "There is no good and evil, there is > only power, and those to weak to seek it." Hehehe, I have that > memorized now verbatim. Sorry, easily amused at this hour. In light > of all that has been typed, how are we to interpret this statement? > If you loose faith in good and evil, there is only failure, and those > too blind to see it? I would interpret it as the desperate statement of someone who has lost his humanity - an attempt to rationalize what he has done. Because... come ON. We know that Voldemort's statement presents a false dichotomy! Dumbledore clearly has the capacity to take more power than he currently has. He has a lot of powerful friends and is arguably the most powerful wizard in the world. But the power he has is what has been attained without seeking it. Some of it is natural talent, and some of the rest is a result of others respecting him for that talent, and for being a wise, caring, merciful and just man. This is Voldemort saying, 'I'm not evil - there IS no evil! I'm powerful.' It's... oh dear... what's the phrase? Moral relativism! Yes! It is Voldemort's way of trying to convince others that he was right in what he did. Maybe he's trying to convince himself, too, but I think mostly he's trying to make Harry start having doubts about HIS choices by presenting this false dichotomy. And it's still early, so I'm rambling. Later, yo. CK From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 13:34:38 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:34:38 -0000 Subject: Binding magical contracts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, PAGAN MICHELLE I < michelle.pagan at c...> wrote: > This question brings me to another one (I'm sorry, this post seems to add > more questions instead of bringing possible answers!) -- the kids write > their name on a piece of parchment and from that they are chosen? Based > on what? > Yes, in GoF Dumbledore (I think it was Dumbledore) says what the > champions will be based upon, but how does the goblet know the > characteristics of the kids? It's MAGIC, of course! ;) Seriously. I think to look at it in more detail will be unproductive. It's like trying to reason out how a starship works. "Quite nicely, thank you." > At first I was thinking, perhaps the > essence of the student is in the handwriting -- but of course, Harry > didn't put his name in, so that doesn't make sense. So is it purely upon > the name? That seems so...arbitrary again...in the MW tons of people have > the same name, I would imagine that even the smaller WW might have some > common names in there... Yes, but also - the Goblet didn't 'choose' Harry. And as for name mixup, I guess if you really wanted to be chosen, you'd put in additional identifying info, like your year and house. Make it a bit clearer. CK From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 13:45:12 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:45:12 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < rusalka at i...> wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys > " wrote: > > Oh. Somehow I missed the bit about him being a spy. I thought he > was > > just a lackey. My bad. > > It's easy to miss with everything else that's going on, but during > the Shrieking Shack scene Sirius mentions that Peter was passing > information to Voldemort for a year. Hm. Interesting thought... how would Sirius have known what Peter's function was? Either this was an empty accusation founded on anger, or he has some kind of inside information. > > > Right. Voldemort's 'persuasion' is not necessarily sweet-talk. > > Voldemort also said he "overpowered" her. It takes absolutely no > > finesse to kosh someone on the head and drag them to your boss - > he'll > > know what to do! > > He overpowered her *after* he persuaded her to go on a night-time > stroll with him. Which only makes sense -- you can't kosh somebody > on the head in a public place, and Peter and Bertha met in an inn. > Whatever he did, he had to get her someplace private first. > But Bertha is (IIRC) described as both nosey and dumb. I think this is another example of Peter getting lucky, because even if all he could come up with was, "Uh... come with me!" it worked. All this establishes is that Peter is smarter than Bertha is when her curiosity's got the best of her. And Bertha wasn't known for being a Hermione. CK From mo.hue at web.de Fri Dec 13 16:10:39 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:10:39 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? In-Reply-To: References: <20021213005245.1146.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48272 On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 03:07:59 -0000, "pippin_999 " wrote: Angela said: > > I am a Sirius-supporter to the end. I'm glad that he was not > punished for the prank, but I do not understand WHY he got away > with it? Maybe he didn't. Maybe he was punished, but the > punishment for something like that would probably be expulsion. > << > Pippin replied: > We don't know if Sirius admitted to anything except telling Snape > how to get into the Willow. I always understood from what Lupin was saying in PoA that Sirius apparently didn't do anything else. It was up to Snape to use this information like he did. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sirius should have told him how to get into the Willow, but it's not like he dragged him there. As for not getting any punishment (which I doubt), I explained in a message I sent last week why they weren't all expelled IMO. Dumbledore did it to ensure Lupin could stay at Hogwarts and finish his education. And I still think he didn't take it for attempted murder. Think of the scene in PoA when Malfoy and his friends try to frighten Harry to death by playing Dementors during the Quidditch match. That could have very well killed him if Dumbledore hadn't slowed his fall. Where they expelled? No. If I remember well, they only got detention, and Slytherin lost 50 house points. Was this attempted murder? I don't think so, either. It was a very immature schoolboy prank (a bit like telling Snape how to get into the Willow), but it doesn't prove that Malfoy is capable of murder at the age of thirteen, to paraphrase what Snape said to Dumbledore at the end of PoA. He didn't think of what would happen to him if Harry died, maybe he didn't even imagine Harry *could* die by falling off his broom. I'm not a Draco defender by any means, and I certainly don't think he is the mirror of what Sirius was at school, but I can see a parallel here. > The realization that Sirius had indeed known about Lupin all > along would give an additional reason for Snape to lose it in the > Shack and add some extra fire to Snape's "You haven't forgotten" > speech in the Hospital Wing. I think Snape must have known all along that Sirius knew about Lupin, or him suspecting Lupin to be in on the joke doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should Sirius tell him where to go if he didn't know what was waiting for him there? Monika From Audra1976 at aol.com Fri Dec 13 16:26:01 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:26:01 EST Subject: Thoughts on possible US Wizarding culture, was Worldw... Message-ID: <78.32d89936.2b2b6419@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48273 My favorite idea about a branch of the U.S. version of the M.O.M. comes from a short fanfic written by a fellow who runs another HP list for grownups: The F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of INCANTATIONS), employing M.I.B. (MAGES In Black), who wear black suits, black fedora hats, and black sunglasses. They are the ones who cast memory charms on any Mundanes (U.S. term for Muggles) who witness evidence of the WW. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 16:26:27 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:26:27 -0000 Subject: Bertha Jorkins & Neville Longbottom (comparison) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Strix " wrote: > BTW, I've actually heard speculation--I forget where, somewhere > on the Internet--that Neville's *parents* are in fact under a spell > that keeps them from regaining their minds. After all, IIRC, > Lucius Malfoy is a big benefactor of St. Mungo's. It may be that > their "insanity" is in fact a curse being maintained on them so > they don't reveal certain information. I could totally see Neville > finding this out, and summoning up all his nerve to confront > Malfoy about it. Which would probably turn out badly. But now > I'm writing fanfiction, so I'll shut up now. LOL. > > Strix I'm sure there are other places somewhere where this was brought up, but it was actually part of my first (I think) post: Speaking of Lucius' influence, does anyone suppose that his large contributions to St. Mungus' Hospital could be buying him influence there which is keeping the Longbottoms incapacitated? Remember in GoF that Rita had an article with some nasty quotes about Harry which were supposed to be from some wizards there, although knowing Rita, she could have just been twisting someone's innocent commments... "annemehr" [post 44253] This isn't fanfic; I was just putting three bits of canon together, even though I spelled "St. Mungo's" wrong! Although Rita is, of course, a very suspect source, she seems to be quoting the St. Mungo's wizard in much the same way that she quotes Draco Malfoy. One is left with the impression that in *both* instances, she is quoting sources she has dug up who are hostile to Harry. And, "hostile to Harry" may very well mean "hostile to the Longbottoms," no? Oh, and I should have said, this article with the St. Mungo's quote is the one she wrote after seeing Harry have his dream in Divination in GoF -- the one where she speculates that Harry is unbalanced (sorry, can't get at my book just now). Anne Where there's life, there's hope. From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 16:46:42 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:46:42 -0000 Subject: Perhaps Not-So-Evil Fudge? (WAS: Evil Evil Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48275 Linda McCabe (Athena) wrote: > I think Fudge is probably a spy for Voldy. Oh he is evil. > Ever So Evil. Now me: I'm not convinced that Fudge is ever-so-evil. I think the evidence in canon regarding Fudge is very contradictory, and (IMO), intentionally so. Everything about him, down to the bizarre way he dresses, is intended to leave us guessing about his true motives. Susan asked (in a very good first initiating post, btw!) about the apparent inconsistency between Fudge saying in the Three Broomsticks (in PoA) that Voldemort would regain power quickly if his most devoted servant was restored to him and Fudge not accepting Voldemort's regeneration (in GoF). While the "Fudge is Evil" premise explains this perfectly, it's also possible that Fudge, in the safety of the Three Broomsticks, can feel comfortable talking about Voldemort's return where, when faced with the reality of its occurrence, he is actually frightened beyond comprehension. He may very well doubt Sirius' guilt. Power-hungry that he is (I definitely agree on this point), he was able to make a name for himself by catching someone who could take the fall for the Potters' deaths as well as for the street full of Muggle killings. So it was fairly irrelevant to him as to whether or not Sirius was actually guilty. With regard to the Three Broomsticks interchange, he needs to continue to proclaim Sirius' guilt, because it got him where he is, but he's not 100% sure about it (because Sirius never got a trial), so while he keeps up the front about Voldemort returning to power if Sirius rejoins him, he may not actually believe it. Linda (Athena) again: > And yes, that's what the meaning of his last name is all about. > Fudging on the Truth. Me again: To "fudge" can also mean (from Webster's Dictionary) "to fail to live up to something;" "to fail to perform as expected;" "to devise as a substitute or without adequate basis;" "to avoid commitment;" "to fail to come to grips with." I think Fudge has displayed all of these characteristics: He's "failing to live up to" his responsibilities, "failing to perform as expected" in his position as Minister, and "avoiding commitment" by "failing to come to grips with" Voldemort's regeneration. He also put Sirius in Azkaban "without adequate basis." ~Phyllis From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 13 16:50:04 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:50:04 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " wrote: > I do think that Voldemort is afraid of weakness and that motivates him to seek power. He does notwant to be seen as weak *at all*. So if we are to say that it is this fear of weakness that is the problem with the creed, then we couldalso draw a parallel to Harry's fear of loosing being his motivation for seeking. Both are signs of weakness in the eyes of others. Both Voldemort and Harry do not want that stigmatism added to their image.You imply that Crouch looses faith in the ways of good and let his pursuit of destroying the evils taint his decisions. Harry on the> other hand does not do this. He has more faith in the system. Well, he is young and impressionable. And in times of despair, good has never let him down. Though it has let his parents down it seems. Hmmm, that is a sad thought. > > So is the problem with seeking occur when the seeker looses faith? Crouch lost faith in good defeating evil nobly. Voldemort lost faith that the WW would find him to be the pinnacle of existence. Siriuslost faith in the WW justice system. Hmmm, I like the trend Pippin.Harry in the other hand, has not lost faith yet. So his "seeking" is about more than lost dreams. Well actually it is motivated by Oliver Wood having lost dreams if Harry failed. << Well, Harry has twice now seen what seems to be negative consequences from acting nobly. He spared Pettigrew, who was then able to escape punishment and assist Voldemort. Then he asked Cedric to take the Cup with him, which resulted in Cedric's death. Dumbledore says we're not supposed to connect the dots, but it's difficult. I was trying to find a phrasing that would indicate I didn't hold taking the Cup as a proximate cause of Cedric's death and I gave up, even though I know perfectly well that "After this, therefore because of this" is a fallacy. So I guess the question is, is Harry going to continue to keep his faith, or is he going to start finding it more difficult? As to Harry's Seeking, his motivation is not only fear of losing. His motivation is also to do something that would have made his father proud, or at least that's how McGonagall encourages the eleven year old Harry to train hard. The Quidditch rules contain an incentive to cheat. The opposing team scores a possible 10 points on a penalty, versus 150 points if they catch the Snitch. What's worse, you can't get thrown out of the game for cheating. What Krum could have done, if he were a less honorable player, was to injure Lynch badly so that he could pursue the Snitch unopposed, with the hope that he could catch it before Ireland's Chasers had enough margin to win. He does in fact attempt to disable Lynch, but by the honorable means of the Wronski feint, rather than by a dishonorable deliberate collision. While Fred and George take an 'eye for an eye' attitude, as Deb pointed out in her excellent post, the Slytherin team's credo is clearly "Do unto others before they do unto you" The Slytherin strategy works. They have seven straight years of victories to their credit, if not their honor. Harry, on the other hand, ignores the advice to "Knock her off her broom if you have to." He doesn't want to lose, but he'd rather lose the game than his honor, even when others on his side are playing dirty. So I guess the conclusion is, "Seek, but not at the expense of honor", where honor is dependent on virtue. You said that Sirius was without faith, and I would add that Lupin is without hope and Snape is without charity. Pippin From kethlenda at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 17:08:24 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:08:24 -0000 Subject: Bertha Jorkins & Neville Longbottom (comparison) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr " wrote: Speaking of Lucius' influence, does anyone suppose that his large > contributions to St. Mungus' Hospital could be buying him influence > there which is keeping the Longbottoms incapacitated? Remember in > GoF that Rita had an article with some nasty quotes about Harry which > were supposed to be from some wizards there, although knowing Rita, > she could have just been twisting someone's innocent commments... > > "annemehr" > [post 44253] > > This isn't fanfic; I was just putting three bits of canon together, > even though I spelled "St. Mungo's" wrong! Although Rita is, of > course, a very suspect source, she seems to be quoting the St. Mungo's > wizard in much the same way that she quotes Draco Malfoy. One is left > with the impression that in *both* instances, she is quoting sources > she has dug up who are hostile to Harry. Me again: Sorry, Anne, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were writing fanfiction; I was picking on myself for going down Speculation Lane when I realized I had made up a whole Neville-Confronts-Lucius scene in my head. LOL. I'll have to go back and read the parts of canon that you mention; I find the theory tantalizing and I need to do my homework on it, so to speak. So, does it have an acronym? :) Strix From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 17:32:43 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:32:43 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " < > rusalka at i...> wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys > > " wrote: > > > > Right. Voldemort's 'persuasion' is not necessarily sweet-talk. > > > Voldemort also said he "overpowered" her. It takes absolutely no > > > finesse to kosh someone on the head and drag them to your boss - > > he'll > > > know what to do! > > > > He overpowered her *after* he persuaded her to go on a night-time > > stroll with him. Which only makes sense -- you can't kosh somebody > > on the head in a public place, and Peter and Bertha met in an inn. > > Whatever he did, he had to get her someplace private first. > > > But Bertha is (IIRC) described as both nosey and dumb. I think this is > another example of Peter getting lucky, because even if all he could > come up with was, "Uh... come with me!" it worked. All this > establishes is that Peter is smarter than Bertha is when her > curiosity's got the best of her. And Bertha wasn't known for being a > Hermione. > > CK Anne: Don't forget, that when Pettigrew met Bertha in the Inn, that *Bertha* also met *Pettigrew*, and it's implied that she recognized him, addled brain or no. There is a lot about how Pettigrew found Bertha in the first dream Harry had, where Frank Bryce is listening to Voldemort and Wormatail talking in the old Riddle mansion: "I found you," said Wormtail, and there was definitely a sulky edge to his voice now. "I was the one who found you. I brought you Bertha Jorkins." "That is true," said the second man, sounding amused. "A stroke of brilliance I would not have thought possible from you, Wormtail -- though, if truth be told, you were not aware how useful she would be when you caught her, were you?" And, the second reason for killing Bertha Jorkins, after noting that she was no longer useful for anything: "In any case, awkward questions would have been asked if she had gone back to the Ministry with the news that she had met you on her holidays. Wizards who are supposed to be dead would do well not to run into Ministry of Magic witches at wayside inns...." So, I think Pettigrew had to do some quick thinking and apply some actual powers of persuasion to get Bertha out of there before she could attract unwanted attention. It does seem to have surprised Voldemort somewhat, but I think it at least shows that Pettigrew has some talent, just not always the foresight or insight to know how to use it. When he really applies himself (to the service of his own personal survival), his talents reveal themselves. Otherwise, his talents remain hidden, and people think they don't exist. He's probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's still sharper than he gets credit for. Anne From kethlenda at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 17:40:39 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:40:39 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48279 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clicketykeys " wrote: > > It's easy to miss with everything else that's going on, but during > > the Shrieking Shack scene Sirius mentions that Peter was passing > > information to Voldemort for a year. > > Hm. Interesting thought... how would Sirius have known what Peter's > function was? Either this was an empty accusation founded on anger, or > he has some kind of inside information. I think what happened there is that Sirius *suspected* a spy for about an year before Lily and James died. Maybe L and J kept narrowly escaping the bad guys until they tried the Fidelius Charm. He thought the spy was Lupin; Lupin thought it was Sirius. They were both wrong, but there really was a traitor in their midst. When Sirius found out that Pettigrew was a traitor, he figured, "OK, he was the spy all along." I don't think he needed inside information to make that comment, but I can't say for sure. Strix From sgarfio at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 18:00:38 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:00:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021213180038.2482.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48280 Polaris wrote: > This question brings me to another one (I'm sorry, this post seems to add > more questions instead of bringing possible answers!) -- the kids write > their name on a piece of parchment and from that they are chosen? Based > on what? Yes, in GoF Dumbledore (I think it was Dumbledore) says what the > champions will be based upon, but how does the goblet know the > characteristics of the kids? At first I was thinking, perhaps the > essence of the student is in the handwriting -- but of course, Harry > didn't put his name in, so that doesn't make sense. Minor clarification here: The kids were supposed to put their name *and* school on the parchment. Harry's parchment didn't have a school, just his name (or, at least, Dumbledore didn't read a school from it; some have speculated that another school name was used). So the Goblet's job is to select the best student from each school, based on whatever criteria it has. It doesn't know about age restrictions, or what schools are involved, and it apparently doesn't even know how to count to 3. By submitting Harry's name with no school or a fictitious school, his name was *guaranteed* to be selected, since his name was the only one submitted for that "school". As to your actual question, how does the Goblet know who to select from all of the names within a given school, I can't answer that. I have speculated that it's really just the luck of the draw, and a student's willingness to participate is enough to qualify them. This is why Dumbledore set up the Age Line, and told the students to be very sure they wanted to participate, because if a student with minimal skills enters (like Neville if he were old enough), he has just as much chance of being selected as anyone else. In other words, the students themselves must decide whether they feel their abilities are up to the task, and the Goblet just spits out a name at random from the ones submitted for a particular school. This might explain Fleur's less-than-stellar performance; perhaps she wasn't the best suited student from Beauxbatons; she just had the chutzpah to enter. Of course, she mostly fell flat on the second task because of the Grindylow, and perhaps that was just something they don't teach at Beauxbatons. The third task wasn't fair, and she did succeed moderately on the first. I'm not sure I believe that the Goblet just chooses blindly, but it could be the magical equivalent of a lottery machine, with no real brains beyond what I have described. You may now rip my theory to shreds, since I don't have any ego investment in it, I just thought I'd bring it up and see if it holds water. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 18:30:46 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:30:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021213183046.87348.qmail@web14608.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48281 "clicketykeys " wrote: during > the Shrieking Shack scene Sirius mentions that Peter was passing > information to Voldemort for a year. Hm. Interesting thought... how would Sirius have known what Peter's function was? Either this was an empty accusation founded on anger, or he has some kind of inside information. ME: Well, it is not an empty accusation. Sirius did have inside infor (though not from LV's side). We know that the Potters knew that LV was after them (info from one of DD's spies), and DD suspected that someone close to the Potters was a spy because info about them (their whereabouts?) was most likely leaking. This probably went on for about a year, until the time that the Potters were killed. It seems that everyone in James'inner-circle was aware of this before the Potters were killed (ie, Sirius suspecting Remus) <> ME: Your argument is sound. We can only speculate on HOW PP gets away with all his deception. But if you keep putting it down to him "getting lucky", then I think you will underestimate him just as much as the Marauders did. ANGELA ________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! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 18:24:44 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:24:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil, and Stuff (was Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021213182444.3401.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48282 On whether Voldemort could be redeemed: "clicketykeys " wrote: <> EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Voldemort does love his mother. Angela --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 19:16:55 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:16:55 -0000 Subject: How many students at Hogwarts? (yes, again) (was: How do they know?) In-Reply-To: <1242629200.20021213120322@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sasha Special wrote: > Greetings! > > > Steve wrote: > > Sbyc> BBOY_MN: We only know OF five boys who were sorted > Sbyc> into Gryffindor. > > ...etc...etc...etc... > Alexander Replied: > > Well, let me just state that we don't know there is ONLY > one Harry and ONLY one Dumbledore. Of course, Hermione said > "Who is the one wizard You-Know-Who was always afraid of?", > but maybe she ONLY knew ONE Dumbledore and didn't know > others? > > Any fact can be "refuted" in such a way. Even your own > existence. :) -end this part- bboy_mn responds: There is a difference between rational and rationalize. Most of us, when trying to resolve the many inconsistencies, tend to fall more toward rationalizing. We know OF 5 boys sorted into Gryffindor, but we do NOT know that ONLY 5 boys were sorted into Gryffindor. That is a fact. Five are documented but the Sorting scene is not one continuous uninterupted primary foreground scene. It is one part of what Harry sees and thinks as he is sitting in the Great Hall. It is very very likely that not every student who was sorted into any house was accounted for by name. There are gaps in the Sorting Hat timeline and we don't know what happened in those gaps. Back to rationalizing, we DON'T know that there is only one Harry and one Dumbledore. We can rationalize any sequence of fact and assumption or 'picked nits' to establish that there IS more that one. But rationally, we know for the intent and purpose of the story, there is one. Just as we know rationally, that we don't necessarily know that we had a 100% account of the Sorting Cerimony. Think of any TV show or movie that takes place in a high school, there are many students in the background who are in the same grade and in the same classrooms as the primary and secondary characters, yet those background characters are never named, or spoken about, nor do they speak, but none the less, they are there. We have the same thing in these books, we have hundreds of characters in the background who are never seen, who are never spoken about, who are never named, and who never speak, yet we know with certainty they are there. If I recall (random guess) there have probably only been 6 each Ravenclaw and Hufflepuffs named (approx, whatever it is, it's smaller that the true number of students), yet we do not use that data to conclude that there are only 6 of each. The general impression left by the story itself, tells us that that conclusion is false. Yet, the data supports it. Admittedly, other data more clearly established the Hufflepuff number, but it doesn't establish it with absolute certainty. That's why I say that your impression as you read the story is the truest account, because that is the impression the author intended and succeeded in giving you. Again, JKR is only responsible for making the story consistent enough to be believable. To do that her research and calculations of size must be accurate enough so as to not create glaring inconsistencies that distract from the story. But she has no actual obligation to make every single bit of data add up. The impression she conveys is her true intent, not a mathmatical accounting. -end this part- ALexander continues: > > Let's return to the facts, good, solid facts: > > General theories are as follows: > > 1) 280 students. Based on Harry's class size. ... > > 2) 800 students. Based on number of people who watch > Quidditch games in Hogwarts. ... > > 3) 1000 students. Based on JKR's interview. ... > > So far the "280" theory seems to have the most number of > documentary evidence. Any historian will tell you what it > means: "This theory must be assumed true until proven > otherwise or until other theories collect comparable amount > of evidence". Classic Occam's Razor. -end this part- bboy_mn also continues: "Let's return to the facts, good, solid facts:" 'Let's return to the assumptions that are based on our interpretation of the available information', would be a more accurate statement. -end this part- > bboy_mn originally said: > ... ... ... The story itself and not the data is the truest > indicator. > Alexander responds: > Beauty of the world created by author does not make it > illegal to explore and investigate and research this world. > "Forget the numbers and stick to your impressions" is nice > for regular reader, but absolutely not enough for someone > who is interested not only in storyline. This includes > nearly all fanfic writers, BTW - they *must* know the world > to write their stories, and frankly speaking, WW is not the > friendliest world to a researcher. > > Sincerely yours, > Alexander Lomski, bboy concludes: "The story itself and not the data is the truest indicator." ...and it is. It is also the author only true responsibility, but that statement in no way implies that data can not or should not be analysed. But in doing your analysis, at some point, you have to accept that somethings can not be resolved through data, and can therefore only be resolve through imagination. But that's fun, really fun. Filling in the blanks with imagination is a lot more fun than calculating the data. Of course, to find out where the 'blanks' are, you have to calculate the data. The only valid conclusion that we can reach from the data we have is that we can't reach any valid conclusion. But we can have a great time imagining how all these inconsistencies can be resolved. Well... I'm having a great time anyway. And theories that are counter to my own will either sway me to a more solid theory or force me to dig deeper to reenforce my existint theory. But we have to accept that without more data, we can never have more than theories. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From the.gremlin at verizon.net Fri Dec 13 19:25:10 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:25:10 -0000 Subject: Evil Evil Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48284 Susan wrote: "Why then, in Goblet, does Fudge find it so hard to believe V is rising again? After all, Sirius has returned to him. Another DE has been revealed in Crouch/Moody. All the signs point to it, and yet Fudge denies it? It is possible, of course, that Fudge is simply in denial because he doesn't want to believe it. But then, why did he so obviously accept the idea in the Three Broomsticks?" I posted something awhile ago on Fudge that never got any replies. Here it is, because I want to see what people think. It's sort of a neither-black-nor-white Fudge, or grey, if you prefer. "So I'm re-reading GoF, and I was wondering, has anyone considered the fact that Fudge knowingly brought the Dementor up to see Crouch Jr., so that he could destroy the only person who could give a believable testimony to V-Mort's return? By the time Snape goes to summon Fudge, Fudge had already heard a little bit about V-Mort being involved with the events of the night, and he feared that Crouch Jr. would, in fact be able to give a believable testimony and he was just hoping that by destroying the only capable witness, this whole V-Mort thing would just all go away. "By all accounts, he's no loss!" blustered Fudge. (pg. 703, US Paperback) The passage following that goes like this: "But he cannot now give testimony, Cornelius," said Dumbledore. He was staring hard at Fudge, as though seeing him plsinly for the first time. "He cannot give evidence about why he killed those people." DD is staring hard at Fudge because he realized that Fudge is bent on ignoring this all, and that he knew the Dementor would preform it's kiss. And, Fudge's taglines on this page are 'blustered', and when someone blusters, they are usually searching for words to say. So, how's the theory? " What I was thinking is that it could just be Fudge trying to make it all blow over, as I state, or it could be a "kill the messenger type" thing, and Fudge let Crouch Jr. get Kissed so he wouldn't say anything incriminating. -Acire, who is tiiiired...never get up for work at 5:30 on rainy day on 5 hours of sleep, then try to drve for 2... From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Fri Dec 13 19:49:07 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (bloubet at incanmonkey.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:49:07 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] ESE Fudge? In-Reply-To: <1039765573.3224.98674.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <1039808946.66303@incanmonkey.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48285 (I think I may rename my fudge recipe. This heading certainly describes it. ) Susan says: >Upon re-reading PoA for the zillionth time, I noticed something on p156, in >the Three Broomsticks scene. Old Fudge, in GoF, is adamant that Voldemort >could not come back if his life depended on it. However, on p156, Fudgey says >that "give him back his most faithful servant, and I shudder to think how >quickly he will rise again." Now, Sirius Black, as far as Fudge is concerned, >is still a bad guy, and LV's right hand man. So when Sirius escapes at the end >of PoA, V has been, in Fudge's own words "given back his most faithful >servant". (Of course, it turned out Barty Jr was his most faithful servant, >but that doesn't cover FIE :) ) Why then, in Goblet, does Fudge find it so >hard to believe V is rising again? After all, Sirius has returned to him. >Another DE has been revealed in Crouch/Moody. All the signs point to it, and >yet Fudge denies it? Fudge may just be foolish enough to believe that they'll catch Sirius again before he gets back to Voldemort, and is, thus, still confident that Voldy can't rise again -- he still won't have his most faithful servant. Besides, it's a lot more comfortable to believe that Voldy, once defeated, can't possibly come back. Certainly not strong enough to menace the whole WW again. I'm reminded of a sequence of lines from one of my favorite musicals, "1776", set during the Congress that ratified the Declaration of Independence for America. John Adams is arguing with one of the other representatives, who is supporting making peace with the King. (paraphrasing a bit here, since I don't quite have it memorised ) Adams says, "Why can't you see what is already here? It's been over a year since Concord and Lexington. We're at WAR, man! WAR!" To which Dickinson replies, "YOU'RE at war! YOU! John Adams!" Fudge may be so far in denial that he can only see Harry threatened, or possibly, by extension, Harry and Hogwarts. Surely, Voldy will be stopped by Dumbledore before HE has to deal with it. Yes, that's the ticket. Dumbledore will stop him (because of course he CAN) and Fudge won't have to worry about leading the MoM during wartime. Because he would suck at it, waffling as he always does, and Crouch is gone. JMHO, of course, and personally, I can't decide yet which Fudge I believe in more strongly... bel From probono at rapidnet.com Fri Dec 13 19:31:45 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (probonoprobono ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:31:45 -0000 Subject: Evil, and Stuff (was Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing?) In-Reply-To: <20021213182444.3401.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans wrote: > > On whether Voldemort could be redeemed: > "clicketykeys " wrote: > > < Rowling has done a pretty good job of dehumanizing Voldemort.>> > > > Angela wrote: > EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Voldemort does love his mother. Me: Does he really? Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort doesn't understand love, especially (if I'm not mistaken) the love between mother and son. And altough Voldemort certainly seems to believe his mother loved his father, I'm not sure if *I* buy it. We're told Riddle was the last remaining descendant of Slytherin and Ron states at one point that "most wizards these days are half blood anyway, if we hadn't married Muggles, we would have died out." That statement seems to prove that even the so-called "pure families" including the Malfoy's, the Weasley's, and the Crouch's must have mixed their blood at some point if they are still around today. My theory: A relationship with a Muggle was simply the last possibility available to Tom's mother if she wanted to continue the Slytherin family name. BTW, I find it interesting that Tom Sr. never remarried - perhaps it was really Tom who had his heart broken? Perhaps he didn't even know he had a son? -Tanya From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Fri Dec 13 20:15:10 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (bloubet at incanmonkey.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:15:10 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] There is only power In-Reply-To: <1039767590.3160.8086.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <1039810508.69132@incanmonkey.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48287 >> So return to the above quote, "There is no good and evil, there is >> only power, and those too weak to seek it." Hehehe, I have that >> memorized now verbatim. Sorry, easily amused at this hour. In >>light of all that has been typed, how are we to interpret this statement? >> If you loose faith in good and evil, there is only failure, and >>those too blind to see it? >> >> >> Melody >Since it is *Voldemort* speaking here (via Quirrel) perhaps JKR's >attitude could be more truly expressed by a direct reversal: > >"There is good and evil. There is not only power. Those who do not >seek power are not weak." > >Pip!Squeak I think perhaps something important here is to add, "... there is only power *for its own sake*, and those too weak to seek it." from Voldemort's point of view. Hmm... I meant what I just said, but I don't think it's going to get my point across. Lemme 'splain. (all IMHO, of course) Power is a tool. You can have good and evil, and also have power. If you use power as a tool for good, you're still good. If you use it as a tool for evil, you're still evil. Power is neutral. Seeking power is not evil. Power can be used for good, and can be obtained without hurting yourself or anyone else. Voldemort's problems are twofold. (1) He doesn't see a line between good and evil, or even a continuum, for that matter. There is no moral judgment to be passed on any action. It's not just unimportant -- it doesn't exist. Most people can see a morality continuum, and know that it affects their choices. While most of us would probably say that Voldemort is *wrong* in this belief, we can at least say that he is out of step with most of the rest of humanity. (2) He believes that the search for power is the only true meaning to life. If you don't seek power, it's because you're too weak to try, you don't have the guts or the strength to reach out and grab all the power that can be yours. The goal in life is power itself. Power *for its own sake*. Not power to do good, power to defeat your enemies, power to control the world. Just power. Voldemort's goal is to be the most powerful wizard in the world. He was defeated the first time by Dumbledore (he had fear of Dumbledore and so was weak in comparison -- a flaw he plans to remedy this time around) and by Harry. Harry and Dumbledore were more powerful than Voldemort. And that's what he just can't stand. He abhors weakness, and he especially abhors it in himself. To wipe out that weakness, he has to be the most powerful -- and that means eradicating Dumbledore and Harry. What will he do once he's the most powerful? I don't think he's really thought that far ahead. And THAT is his se! cond problem. His life has been built around the pursuit of a tool, with no goal in mind to use it for. How empty is that? bel From bobafett at harbornet.com Fri Dec 13 20:23:33 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:23:33 -0800 Subject: Thoughts on possible US Wizarding culture, was Worldw... References: <78.32d89936.2b2b6419@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c2a2e5$85499e00$7aedaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48288 Audra1976 at aol.com wrote: My favorite idea about a branch of the U.S. version of the M.O.M. comes from a short fanfic written by a fellow who runs another HP list for grownups: The F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of INCANTATIONS), employing M.I.B. (MAGES In Black), who wear black suits, black fedora hats, and black sunglasses. They are the ones who cast memory charms on any Mundanes (U.S. term for Muggles) who witness evidence of the WW. Audra me: action{ golf clap ;) I would like to say now if no one else has come up with it i will be the first person ever to announce myself to be a full-on addicted Potter-head. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 13 21:05:48 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:05:48 -0000 Subject: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48289 > Angela said: > > > > I am a Sirius-supporter to the end. I'm glad that he was not > > punished for the prank, but I do not understand WHY he got away > > with it? Maybe he didn't. Maybe he was punished, but the > > punishment for something like that would probably be expulsion. > > << > > > Pippin [moi] replied: > > > We don't know if Sirius admitted to anything except telling Snape how to get into the Willow. Monika: > > I always understood from what Lupin was saying in PoA that Sirius apparently didn't do anything else. It was up to Snape to use thisinformation like he did. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sirius should have told him how to get into the Willow, but it's not like he dragged him there.<< I see I've expressed myself with my usual lack of clarity. Let me try again. My [hypothetical] sequence of events goes like this. Lupin tells his friends including Sirius all kinds of stories about why he is absent Sirius, James and Peter eventually learn the truth Snape spots Lupin entering the Willow with Madame Pomfrey. The Marauders discover what Snape has seen The Marauders fear Snape's spying will uncover more of their secrets and they will be expelled. One [or more] of the Marauders, including Sirius, plan[s] the prank. Sirius tells Snape how to get into the Willow. Snape enters the Willow and sees Lupin transformed James learns and/or gets cold feet about the Prank James saves Snape [Dumbledore questions Snape, James and Sirius about the incident, and later, Lupin] Both James and Snape can testify that Sirius told Snape how to enter the Willow Snape is warned never to reveal Lupin's secret Snape accuses James, Lupin and Sirius of conspiring to kill him. Snape cannot prove that Sirius knew what was in the tunnel. Dumbledore's investigation wouldn't turn up the fact that Sirius knew Lupin was a werewolf unless one of the Marauders told him. Which I rather believe they did not. Dumbledore couldn't very well ask Sirius whether he knew Lupin was a werewolf or knew that there was a monster down the passage without giving the secret away himself. ******** Dumbledore: Tell me why you did this. Sirius: (to Dumbledore's knees) James told me the passage was a secret way out of the school. I, er, thought Snape would get caught out of bounds and get in trouble. (Shades of Draco in book one) Dumbledore: And where was Mr. Lupin was at the time? Sirius: He, er, told me he has to go to help his mother. She's sick and they've got a mooncalf farm, and you know, he thought it would be embarrassing if anyone found out that he was spending every full moon shoveling sh-- (FBAWTFT) Dumbledore: (quickly) That will do, Mr. Black. Is there anything else you wish to tell me? Sirius: No, Headmaster ****** Monika: As for not getting any punishment (which I doubt), > I explained in a message I sent last week why they weren't all > expelled IMO. Dumbledore did it to ensure Lupin could stay at Hogwartsand finish his education. And I still think he didn't take it forattempted murder. > > Think of the scene in PoA when Malfoy and his friends try to frighten Harry to death by playing Dementors during the Quidditch match. That could have very well killed him if Dumbledore hadn't slowed his fall.<< You're confusing two incidents. The fall came from the *real* Dementors during the previous match. Draco couldn't have possibly caused Harry to go into a trance and fall off his broom. The worst that could have happened was that Harry would have been distracted and Ravenclaw would have gotten the Snitch. > Where they expelled? No. If I remember well, they only got detention,and Slytherin lost 50 house points. Was this attempted murder? I don't > think so, either. It was a very immature schoolboy prank (a bit like telling Snape how to get into the Willow), but it doesn't prove that Malfoy is capable of murder at the age of thirteen, to paraphrase what Snape said to Dumbledore at the end of PoA. << Well, risking a salvo from the Draco Apologists, Draco would *like* to be thought capable of murder. We overhear him wishing he could help the Heir of Slytherin and hoping that Granger will die. However, even in the Wizarding World, merely wishing that someone would die is not a crime. Assuming the punishments at Hogwarts usually fit the crime, if not the guilty party, we can see a spectrum of punishments. Whoever deliberately set Slytherin's monster loose to kill people would be in Azkaban. The incident would be kept quiet. (Draco's statement to Ron and Harry in CoS. ) Hagrid, accused of keeping a dangerous monster which accidentally kills a student, is expelled from school but not sent to Azkaban. The incident was kept quiet. Draco, pretending to be a dangerous monster, is given detention and loses house points. Draco wishes Granger would die. No punishment, not even one of JKR's karmic specials. I think Dumbledore would have been confident that he could keep things quiet, even if he had to expel somebody. And I think he would have done that, at least, if he could have proved that Sirius knew what Lupin was and deliberately planned for Snape to encounter him. Me: > > The realization that Sirius had indeed known about Lupin all > > along would give an additional reason for Snape to lose it in the Shack and add some extra fire to Snape's "You haven't forgotten" > > speech in the Hospital Wing. Monika: > I think Snape must have known all along that Sirius knew about Lupin, or him suspecting Lupin to be in on the joke doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should Sirius tell him where to go if he didn'tknow what was waiting for him there? My idea is that Snape *believed* that Sirius knew about Lupin, but couldn't prove it, and when he finally heard that Sirius admit that, yes, he did know about Lupin, Snape was illogically confirmed in his belief Lupin knowing about the prank. Interestingly, with Crookshanks there to spot lying, Lupin never denies having been involved. Pippin From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Dec 13 21:27:38 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:27:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts In-Reply-To: <20021213180038.2482.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48290 I think the Goblet is more analogous to the Sorting Hat, that is, sentient and able to discern the quality and characteristics of the names for each school. It rather seems to me that the strongest candidates from each school were chosen, as far as I can tell, which would be quite a trick, statistically, for a pure chance algorithm. Suzanne > From: Sherry Garfio [mailto:sgarfio at yahoo.com] > > I'm not sure I believe that the Goblet just chooses blindly, but > it could be > the magical equivalent of a lottery machine, with no real brains > beyond what I > have described. You may now rip my theory to shreds, since I > don't have any > ego investment in it, I just thought I'd bring it up and see if > it holds water. > > Sherry > From estesrandy at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 21:39:34 2002 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy Estes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:39:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nimbus - 2003: Deadlines fast approaching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021213213934.2267.qmail@web40912.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48291 Do You think a gathering of people regarding fan filk or silly songs about HP would be appropriate for this event? I would be interested in hosting such a group. I have written a few, and I would like to meet others who have done the same. I'm not sure if this would fit the bill or not. It could be a special session open to all with a karaoke machine or something like that if not deemed serious enough for a main gathering. Talk amonst yourselves. Let me or Carole know what you decide. I am only a one hour drive from the hotel. Randy --- "Penny Linsenmayer " wrote: > Hi everyone -- > > This is being sent as a special announcement to all > HP4GU members. As > many of you know, HP4GU is the primary promoter > group for Nimbus - > 2003: A Harry Potter Symposium, to be held July > 17-20, 2003 in > Orlando, FL. For all the information about Nimbus, > take a look at the > website (www.hp2003.org). > > We wanted to remind everyone that some > Nimbus-related deadlines are > fast approaching. > > First, if you are interested in leading or > participating in a > presentation, panel discussion, roundtable or > workshop at Nimbus, the > deadline for proposal submissions is January 15, > 2003. We are very > interested in receiving proposals from fans, > particularly for "fandom > culture" topics such as fanfiction, fan art, website > design & > administration, shipping, etc. > > Please take a look at our FAQ for submitting > proposals to Nimbus -- > > http://www.hp2003.org/cfp/cfpfaq2.html > > We've defined terms and given suggestions in the > above document for > how you can link up with other interested fans to > submit a proposal > relating to one of your favorite topics. If you > have a question > that's not covered in the FAQ though, we do give an > email address > where you can contact members of the Nimbus staff. > > For some suggested topics to help get you started, > take a look at the > Call for Participation: > > http://www.hp2003.org/cfp/index.html > > Second, registration fees for Nimbus will increase > starting January > 16, 2003 (increasing about every 2 months > thereafter). If you want to > get the lowest registration fee for Nimbus ($99.75 > USD), register on > or before January 15th! > > Again -- JANUARY 15, 2003 is the deadline for > submitting a proposal > and the last day to register at the lowest > early-bird registration fee! > > Hope to see you at Nimbus! > > Penny > Co-Chair, Programming > Nimbus - 2003: A Harry Potter Symposium > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 22:16:33 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:16:33 -0000 Subject: Evil Evil Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ats_fhc3 " wrote: > > I posted something awhile ago on Fudge that never got any replies. > Here it is, ... ... ... > > "So I'm re-reading GoF, and I was wondering, has anyone considered > the fact that Fudge knowingly brought the Dementor up to see Crouch > Jr., so that he could destroy the only person who could give a > believable testimony to V-Mort's return? > > ...edited... > > So, how's the theory? " > > What I was thinking is that it could just be Fudge trying to make it > all blow over, as I state, or it could be a "kill the messenger > type" thing, and Fudge let Crouch Jr. get Kissed so he wouldn't say > anything incriminating. > > -Acire bboy_mn comments: I think you have the right function, but your motivation is just ever so slightly off. That is, your assesment of Fudge's motivation. I think Fudge is doing everything you suggest, but I don't think it is a concious calculated plot. I think he is running on fear, instinct, and a lot of rationalized thought. So while he did indeed bring the Dementor as was way of stopping Crouch from speading his story, I think in his mind, he rationalized it with other reasons. Sadly, the only person he is fooling is himself. I think his actions throughout are self-serving and he is intent on preserving his own comfortable world no matter how much he must delude himself in order to make that happen. So, on a subconscious level, I think you hit it right on, but again, it's subscoius. It's not a cold calculated effort to do these things. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Dec 13 22:33:58 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:33:58 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: <12a.1d614eb6.2b2bba56@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48293 In a message dated 13/12/2002 07:07:53 GMT Standard Time, Malady579 at hotmail.com writes: > >In the Second Task, the competitors had to seek their lost friends. > >All sought, but the winner was the one sought with the interests of > >the "lost" uppermost in his considerations, rather than thought of > >personal gain. > Melody: > <>Task Two: Can you honestly say that the tournament was not about > winning? Winning for your school, house, country? When they were in > that lake they were wanting to get their hostage first because they > wanted to get back to the finish line first. No because they thought > the person was in danger. Only Harry was thick enough to believe > that. The object they were seeking was deeply felt, but the main goal > they were after was glory. I think this example divided between the > two objects being sought (hostage and finish line) very closely. > Close enough I don't think they could be separated. Sorry, I think I was unclear. :-) What I was saying was that the *actual winner of the event* - Harry - won because he put the interests of those in danger before his personal glory. (As the event was planned, you're right, it should have won by someone in pursuit of their own glory.) Yes, the Tournament itself was very much about winning. But Harry didn't intentionally enter the Tournament and in the event seems to have been more concerned with surviving, than winning. But in the Second Task he risked even his survival out of concern for others. Only afterwards did he condemn himself as stupid, which he was in a worldly-wise way. He doesn't seem to have recognised the virtue recognised by Dumbledore and (most of) the judges. So however the Tournament was supposed to pan out, it was the unworldy fool who was seeking, but not for his own gain, who won in the end. In fact, it happened with the Third Task as well, didn't it? The task where they *sought* the cup. The winners were the two competitors who had shown consideration for each other, helped each other and in the end tried to give way to each other. So again, I think we're being shown that it is the motive behind the seeking which is important. Harry *had* to compete because of the contract. Given that, his motive in the Second Task initially was to secure the safety of *one* personal friend. In the event he was prepared to lose the championship in order to save both his friends and a stranger. In this he was unlike Viktor and Cedric, who played the game to win. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sjnhp at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 13 22:35:44 2002 From: sjnhp at yahoo.co.uk (Simon Nickerson) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:35:44 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48294 In message , Christopher Nuttall writes >Simon"What form does this obligation take? (I assume it's nothing as >prosaic as a Muggle law court!) What would have happened to Harry if he >had simply refused to take part in the tournament?" > >I think its just an 'if you sign, you must do' type of agreement. OK, but who or what would make Harry take part if he absolutely and adamantly refused? The contract is described as a "binding magical contract", so I don't think the obligation to take part is being enforced in the same way that a Muggle agreement might be enforced. If so, wouldn't there have to be another party who demanded for the agreement to be enforced? But nobody wanted (or could openly say that they wanted) Harry to take part in the Triwizard Tournament. Dumbledore said that he couldn't see how to resolve the problem without Harry entering the tournament; if there were a 'diplomatic' non-magical solution (corresponding to a non-magical way of enforcing the agreement), then surely Dumbledore would have tried it. Surely this implies that there is some degree of *magical* compulsion involved. IF this conclusion follows, then how is this any different from using the Imperius curse on somebody, especially if you can become bound by a contract that you never agreed to? Chris: >If Harry had not wanted to take part, he would have had to convince >people that he had not managed to get round the charm defending the >goblet. But Harry did manage to persuade a number of people that he hadn't got around the charm. How many people would he have to persuade? Do you think that the agreement is enforced on him by the people who think that he entered? Quite a lot of those people would have been only too happy to prevent Harry from entering, so why would they be enforcing the contract? -- Simon Nickerson "I went on the Underground - " "Really?" said Mr Weasley eagerly. "Were there escapators?" From kethlenda at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 23:23:13 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:23:13 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and His Mom (formerly "Evil and Stuff") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "probonoprobono < probono at r...>" wrote: > > Angela wrote: > > EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Voldemort does love his mother. And Tanya wrote: > Me: Does he really? Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort doesn't > understand love, especially (if I'm not mistaken) the love between > mother and son. My comments: I think I can make sense of the idea that he loves his mother and at the same time doesn't really understand love. He idealizes her; he has made her into this saintly martyr in his head. The poor innocent sweet perfect witch who was dumped by an icky nasty Muggle and died bearing him. It's very easy to idealize, and to feel an almost religious devotion toward, someone you never truly know deeply. He has her on a pedestal, but doesn't really understand how to love and care about an ordinary, flawed human being, year in and year out, through thick and thin, etc. Strix From squireandknight at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 23:35:31 2002 From: squireandknight at yahoo.com (Becky ) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:35:31 -0000 Subject: Binding magical contracts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48296 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, PAGAN MICHELLE I > This question brings me to another one (I'm sorry, this post seems to add > more questions instead of bringing possible answers!) -- the kids write > their name on a piece of parchment and from that they are chosen? Based > on what? Yes, in GoF Dumbledore (I think it was Dumbledore) says what the > champions will be based upon, but how does the goblet know the > characteristics of the kids? At first I was thinking, perhaps the > essence of the student is in the handwriting -- but of course, Harry > didn't put his name in, so that doesn't make sense. So is it purely upon > the name? That seems so...arbitrary again...in the MW tons of people have > the same name, I would imagine that even the smaller WW might have some > common names in there... It's possible it *is* the handwriting or whatever. Crouch!Moody was Harry's teacher and I doubt it would be that hard to get hold of a piece of parchment Harry had written his name on. > > Polaris Becky From sgarfio at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 23:46:23 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:46:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Punishment vs Consequences (WAS: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius?) In-Reply-To: <20021213005245.1146.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021213234623.32151.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48297 Angela wrote: > But, what thoughts does everyone have on WHY Dumbledore let > the Marauders, especially Sirius, go unpunished? I would like to take this opportunity to put forth some ideas I have been contemplating of late, mostly in response to the anti-Harry crowd asking me how I can justify reading to kids about kids who break the rules and never get caught, much less punished. My response is to point out the *consequences* faced by the Trio: the very first time they go sneaking around at night, what do they find? Fluffy! I doubt McGonnagal herself could have come up with a more severe punishment . This all ties in very nicely with what I perceived as a problem with many kids' morality when I was teaching high school. The kids I taught seemed to believe that *getting caught* breaking the rules is the crime, not breaking the rules in the first place. In Harry's world, on the other hand, getting caught breaking the rules usually results in a more *lenient* punishment than not getting caught. The reasons for the rules become very apparent to our heroes as soon as they break them. I think this is a good thing to teach kids, in light of the problem with the current views I stated above. Actions have consequences, whether those consequences come in the form of authority-imposed punishment or not. Kids (and adults, let's not forget about them) see the punishment, or lack thereof, that others receive much more easily than natural consequences, hence the current situation of kids avoiding getting caught rather than following the rules. [I should also state that as a parent, I very much subscribe to the "Natural and Logical Consequences" philosophy of discipline; here's a brief article if you want more info: http://www.drrobertbrooks.com/writings/articles/0106.html ] Of course, blindly following arbitrary rules is not a good thing either. At the end of each of the first 3 books, the Trio break all sorts of school rules for the greater good. In these cases, blindly following the rules would have allowed much worse things to happen, so breaking the rules was the right thing to do. This is a more complex form of moral reasoning. One needs to see the reasoning *behind* the rules to know why they should be followed, and when (if ever) they should be discarded. Now, getting back to Angela's question, why did Sirius go unpunished for the Prank? My question is, *did* he go unpunished? I have stated before that I don't see Sirius as lacking in remorse; I think he's *so* remorseful that he can't bring himself to face it. His comment that Snape "deserved" the Prank seems too flippant to be genuine; he perceives that his audience doesn't care for Snape either, and hopes that they will just agree that he deserved it and move on so that Sirius doesn't have to examine his own guilt, or worse, defend himself, because he can't. If I'm right, then this is his punishment - one that he relived over and over for 12 years in Azkaban. Dumbledore didn't need to *impose* a punishment; the natural consequences were much more appropriate than anything Dumbledore could have come up with. If I'm wrong, and Sirius' comments are a true reflection of his beliefs, then is there any evidence that he suffered any consequences for his actions? It seems clear that there was no *authority-imposed* punishment, or at least we never hear about it. That would make it easy for Snape to hold a grudge, since as I have stated, punishment is much more visible to outsiders than consequence, and Snape may have failed to see how Sirius paid. Does anyone know of any such consequence of the Prank? BTW, thanks to all of you who responded to my Boggart question. More to contemplate. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Dec 14 00:06:21 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:06:21 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Punishment vs Consequences (WAS: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius?) References: <20021213234623.32151.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00bb01c2a304$a389a9e0$8c8501d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48298 Sherry wrote: > If I'm wrong, and Sirius' comments are a true reflection of his beliefs, then > is there any evidence that he suffered any consequences for his actions? It > seems clear that there was no *authority-imposed* punishment, or at least we > never hear about it. That would make it easy for Snape to hold a grudge, since > as I have stated, punishment is much more visible to outsiders than > consequence, and Snape may have failed to see how Sirius paid. Does anyone > know of any such consequence of the Prank? But of course! Huge, karmic consequences - when he was framed, everyone, including Dumbledore and his friend Lupin believed it without a trial. If it was not for the prank, maybe there would have been someone who said - "Hang on, Sirius the murderer? What an absurd idea, let's at least hear his explanations". Irene From sgarfio at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 00:01:19 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:01:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021214000119.74445.qmail@web21412.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48299 Melancholy Melody wrote: > Task Two: Can you honestly say that the tournament was not about > winning? Winning for your school, house, country? When they were in > that lake they were wanting to get their hostage first because they > wanted to get back to the finish line first. No because they thought > the person was in danger. Only Harry was thick enough to believe > that. Just wanted to interject that Fleur sure seemed to believe it - she was absolutely hysterical that she didn't reach her sister, and completely changed her attitude about Harry when she learned that he had "saved" her. Perhaps a large brandy? It worked for Vernon Dursley... Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From sgarfio at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 00:07:54 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:07:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Punishment vs Consequences (WAS: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius?) In-Reply-To: <00bb01c2a304$a389a9e0$8c8501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <20021214000754.47743.qmail@web21410.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48300 I wrote: > Does anyone know of any such consequence of the Prank? And Irene responded almost before I hit "Send": > But of course! Huge, karmic consequences - when he was framed, everyone, > including Dumbledore and his friend Lupin believed it without a trial. If it > was not for the prank, > maybe there would have been someone who said - "Hang on, Sirius the > murderer? What an absurd idea, let's at least hear his explanations". > > Irene Erm. Oh yeah. Duh. I was looking for something more immediate and directly connected, being in my parental "Natural and Logical Consequences" mode. You are absolutely right! Thank you! Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Sat Dec 14 00:11:37 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:11:37 -0600 Subject: Who is the bravest? Message-ID: <003201c2a305$5f30c1b0$1f4053d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 48301 Being mortally terrified of caterpillars, I was thinking about Harry & Ron's adventure into the dark forest. I do believe that Ron is as phobic about spiders as I am about (shudder, skin crawling) caterpillars. Harry doesn't have a qualm about them at all until this particular encounter with the spiders. He picks a spider off his socks while he's in his cupboard under the stairs, sees them scurrying about in CoS, and once again during the DADA lesson. So, this got me to thinking about who is really the bravest Griffindor, and I think its Ron. Facing a huge phobia in the dark forest is a very brave thing to do. Being picked up by a spider (I would instantly drop if a caterpillar fell on my sleeve, I'm sure of it), being chased and threatened by them, and his reaction once they get out of the forest lead me to believe its a phobia. Ron also follows Harry into his adventures when he really doesn't have to. Afterall, its usually Harry's problem(s) and not Ron's. What do you think? Is Ron the bravest? Grace [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Dec 14 00:16:16 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001 ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:16:16 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's effectiveness I(Re: Rats! (Or: A Treatise on Ron and Evil)) In-Reply-To: <20021213183046.87348.qmail@web14608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48302 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans > > ME: Your argument is sound. We can only speculate on HOW PP gets away with all his deception. But if you keep putting it down to him "getting lucky", then I think you will underestimate him just as much as the Marauders did. Maybe Peter used his Animagus form to help him. Picture this: He's at a meeting with several of the "old crowd" which includes Sirius and Remus. He leaves at some point, because whatever is next on the agenda has nothing to do with him. Everyone knows he's left the building, but he transforms into Rat Guy, and sneaks back in. The information shared at this meeting, and perhaps others where Peter is known to have left, somehow gets into Voldemort's hands. This may not necessarily be information concerning the Potters. It could be other information that V would find useful. Peter tells V what he overheard after he supposedly left the meeting (s), with the result that some sort of nasty consequence occurs to the good guys. These consequences don't have to be something major, like a troop of Aurors walking into a death trap. It could have been much less eventful. But, it could be something that would be noticable enough to cause Sirius and Lupin to start thinking that the other is the spy. Neither suspects Peter because 1) they know from experience he's not the guy who typically comes up with The Plan, 2) they know from experience that he's not the most talented wizard on the planet, and 3) they know he had already left the meetings before this information was discussed. Marianne, speculating wildly without a shred of canon to support her. From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 00:39:51 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:39:51 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is the bravest? References: <003201c2a305$5f30c1b0$1f4053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48303 I think the bravest is Nevile. It takes vast courage to stand up to your friends, rather than 'just' face your worst nightmare. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 01:11:31 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:11:31 -0000 Subject: Who is the bravest? In-Reply-To: <003201c2a305$5f30c1b0$1f4053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Grace Saalsaa" wrote: > Being mortally terrified of caterpillars, I was thinking about Harry & Ron's adventure into the dark forest. I do believe that Ron is as phobic about spiders as I am about (shudder, skin crawling) caterpillars. ... ... ... > > So, this got me to thinking about who is really the bravest Griffindor, and I think its Ron. Facing a huge phobia in the dark forest is a very brave thing to do. ... ... ... Ron also follows Harry into his adventures when he really doesn't have to. Afterall, its usually Harry's problem(s) and not Ron's. > > What do you think? Is Ron the bravest? > > Grace bboy_mn who is also a Ron fan agrees: In my fanfic, Harry calls Ron 'a thousand times a hero' because he faced his greatest fear magnified a thousand times, and he set that fear aside for a friend and for the greater good. It was no small feat for Ron to do this. A phobia is something deeply ingrained in our psychology, and it takes tremendous strength of character to override it. In the chess game, he gave his life for the greater good. No, he didn't die, but considering what the consequences of being 'taken' in a giant wizard's chess game means, he as good as gave his life. The Queen took pieces without mercy, she shattered hard stone with a single blow of her arms. Ron, unless he was delusional, should have had every expectation of dying. Yet he sacrificed himself without hesitation. In the Sheiking Shack, Ron stood, on a broken leg I might add, against one of the most notorious, dangerous, powerful, and presumed insane killers in the wizard world, and said, 'you'll have to kill me before I'll let you kill my friend'. There's more in PoA, but you've all read the book so I won't detail them all. Is Ron Brave? OOOOHHHHHH YES, without a doubt he is brave, loyal, and selfless. In a way, I didn't like the way they potrayed Ron in 'that thing'; you know that thing where you sit in a room and they flash lights on the screen while you stuff yourself with popcorn and drink so much lemonade that you have to pee desparately half way through, but don't dare leave for fear of missing anything.... you know... that thing that can't be named. Ron screaming and whining with fear while Harry is bravely stoic (at least some of the time). But in a way that's OK. Being brave or courageous is not being without fear. Only a fool is not afraid. A hero is deathly afraid, but overcomes that fear to do what must be done for no reason other than... it must be done. Ron is brave, and Ron is a hero. Is he the bravest? When you've reach that level of bravery, you are so far above the rest of us mudane muggles that quantifying it ceases to matter. He is far braver that me, and that is measure enough. That's my story and I AM DEFINITELY sticking to it. bboy_mn From Audra1976 at aol.com Sat Dec 14 01:12:04 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:12:04 EST Subject: Evil Evil Fudge and his curious smile Message-ID: <99.315046a4.2b2bdf64@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48305 lmccabe at sonic.net writes: > The strange smile on his face at the end of GoF is > worrying exactly what the price he's going to have to pay to Voldy > now that he has risen again. Me: *Something* was up with that "curious smile." It's mentioned three times in the text. Maybe there should be some more theories about that rather than Dumbledore's gleam. I can't find who asked about what House Fudge might have been in, but I'd have to assume Slytherin. Look at Dumbledore's comments to him at the end of GoF: "You are blinded by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius! You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood." I'd be willing to bet that many of the higher ups in the Ministry are former Slytherins. The values of that House go along well with politicians. And don't forget Fudge's *green* bowler hat. Also, I found something that might add to this Evil, Evil Fudge argument. Back in CoS, when Lucius Malfoy, Fudge, Dumbledore, and Hagrid (and also Harry and Ron under the cloak) are in Hagrid's hut together, the dialogue goes like this: -------------------- "Oh, now see here, Lucius," said Fudge, looking alarmed, "Dumbledore suspended --no, no -- last thing we want just now." "The appointment or suspension of the Headmaster is a matter for the governors, Fudge," said Mr. Malfoy smoothly, "And as Dumbledore has failed to stop the attacks --" "See here, Malfoy, if Dumbledore can't stop them," said Fudge, whose upper lip was sweating now, "I mean to say, who can?" ----------------------- It appears that Fudge is arguing for Dumbledore, and that he is alarmed and anxious at the prospect of Dumbledore being suspended, but if you look at the wording, and you believe F.I.E., you could say Fudge let something slip. When Fudge is alarmed he blurts out "*Lucius*" and that's the "last thing *we* want just now." Lucius keeps his composure and responds "smoothy" calling Fudge, *Fudge*, not Cornelius, and separating himself further by saying it's a matter for the governors that Fudge *shouldn't* be concerned about. *Now* Fudge's upper lip is sweating, and he corrects himself, using *Malfoy* now, and not the familiar, Lucius, as he had just before. Lucius might have oh-so-subtlely been prompting Fudge to correct his slip. Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 01:25:59 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:25:59 -0000 Subject: Who is the bravest? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48306 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: > I think the bravest is Nevile. It takes vast courage to stand up to your friends, rather than 'just' face your worst nightmare. > Chris bboy_mn comments: I have great admiration for Neville. For Neville, considing the great internal fear and insecurity he faces plus the overwhelming external forces that oppress him (Snape), just getting out of bed in the morning is an act of bravery for Neville. There have been many times in the books when Neville has gone against his internal nature, and tried to help the trio. The night they were taking the dragon to the top of the tower and Neville tried to warn them that Draco was setting a trap for them. Considering the generally fearful nature of Neville, to go against that nature, to take that risk knowing how overwhelming the consequences of getting caught would be for him, he chose to be loyal to his friends, he chose an act of risk, of bravery. When, in a sense, your greatest fear is yourself, to set aside that fear for the good of others is without a doubt a tremendous act of bravery. A Neville fan to the end. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 01:45:59 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:45:59 -0000 Subject: The Prank Revisited... again. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48307 There has been a great deal of discussion about 'the prank'. That is, Sirius sending Snape into the Shrieking Shack to meet a werewolf. To the best of my memory, we really only have two references (maybe two and a half) to this. The first being Dumbledore talking to Harry about it. The second being Snape talking to Harry about it. The half, being Sirius making some references to it. That's not much information. From what I've read, we don't know that no one was punished. We don't even necessarily know that anyone was caught. James pulled Snape back before he could be harmed. Do we know for a fact that Snape then went whining to the headmaster? I think not. True Dumbledore knows, to some extent, what happened, but we don't know when or how he found out. So, as far as punishment, I don't think we can say either way. Also, we haven't been told yet what Sirius said to Snape to get him to go down into the Whomping Willow. He could have said something like 'Snape if you're so damn determined to find out what is going on, why don't you just take a stick and poke the knot on the tree, and go look for yourself. BUT I WARN YOU, what you see there will probably be the last thing you ever see in your life. So, if you are really dying to know, then poke the knot on the tree, and go ahead and die.' True, there is an element of reverse psychology here, but Sirius could have warned Snape of the deadly consequences, and Snape's arrogance forced him to do it anyway. In that scenario, Sirius certainly has a degree of blame for what happened, but I can see how that circumstance would allow him to limit his own feelings of guilt. I think we will find out more about what really happened. I think this little incident it too far in the forefront of the story to not be significant enough to come up again. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 03:07:57 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 03:07:57 -0000 Subject: Great Pain You Gain (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48308 Great Pain You Gain (CoS, Chap. 18) To the tune of The Rain of Spain, from Lerner & Loewe's My Fair Lady Hear a MIDI at http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/my_fair_lady.html Dedicated to Ginny's biggest fan, Lilac THE SCENE: McGonagall's office. HARRY explains to the WEASLEYS, DUMBLEDORE, McGONAGALL (and the amnesiac Lockhart) how he rescued Ginny from the Chamber of Secrets. NOTE: For dramatic purposes, I bring DOBBY in a little earlier MOLLY (spoken): You-Know-Who? En-enchant Ginny? But Ginny's not ... Ginny hasn't been ... has she? HARRY (spoken): It was this diary - Riddle wrote it when he was sixteen . . . . MOLLY (spoken): But, Ginny, what's our Ginny got to do with - with -- him?" GINNY (spoken, sobbing): His d-diary ..I've b-been writing in it, and he's been w-writing back all year --" ARTHUR (spoken): Ginny! Haven't I taught you anything? What have I always told you? A suspicious object like that, it was clearly full of Dark Magic.." ARTHUR (music) Great pain you gain if brain can't be explained GINNY Great pain I gain if brain can't be explained ARTHUR Again. GINNY Great pain I gain if brain if can't be explained HARRY How did she get it? How did she get it? GINNY Great pain I gain if brain can't be explained DOBBY (aside to HARRY) >From Lou she got it! >From Lou she got it! ARTHUR Now once again: what will you gain? GINNY Great pain! Great pain! ARTHUR And what causes that great pain? GINNY The brain! The brain! ALL Great pain you gain if brain can't be explained Great pain you gain if brain can't be explained DUMBLEDORE & MOLLY Our hero, Harry who hindered....... RON & McGONAGALL Hideous Hogwarts horrors GINNY How kind of you to rescue me HARRY How kind of you to be rescued. ARTHUR Now once again: what give you pain? GINNY Hidden brain! Hidden brain! ARTHUR And if you blast that brain? GINNY I'll gain! I'll gain! ALL Great pain you gain when brain is inhumane! Great pain you gain when brain is inhumane! Ole! ole! I'll say! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From katienichol at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 02:24:48 2002 From: katienichol at yahoo.com (katienichol ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 02:24:48 -0000 Subject: importance of opals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48309 Hi everyone, this is my first post so please be kind! I've noticed something while I was rereading the series for the bazillionth time and I'd like to get your opinions on what it might mean. In CoS when Harry accidentally lands in Flourish and Blotts he sees Draco looking at several dark magic items, including an opal necklace with a sign that says "Caution: Do Not Touch. Cursed. Has Claimed the Lives of Nineteen Muggle Owners to Date." In GoF when Madame Maxime first makes her appearance at Hogwarts she is described as wearing opal jewelry: "many magnificent opals gleamed at her throat and on her thick fingers," and again at the Yule Ball we see "her opals glittering in the candlelight." There may be other references to her necklace as well. The fact that Maxime wears opals must somehow be significant since it was mentioned at least twice, especially when we take the cursed necklace into consideration. I don't know that Maxime's death would qualify as "horrible to write" for JKR, but it would certainly be horrible for Hagrid and perhaps lead him into a situation that causes his own death. What do you all make of this? "katienichol" From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 03:46:32 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 03:46:32 -0000 Subject: importance of opals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katienichol " wrote: > ...snip... > In CoS when Harry accidentally lands in Flourish and Blotts(**) he > sees Draco looking at several dark magic items, including an opal > necklace with a sign that says "Caution: Do Not Touch. Cursed. > Has Claimed the Lives of Nineteen Muggle Owners to Date." > > In GoF when Madame Maxime first makes her appearance at Hogwarts > she is described as wearing opal jewelry: ...snip... The fact that > Maxime wears opals must somehow be significant ...snip... > > I don't know that Maxime's death would qualify as "horrible to write" > for JKR, but it would certainly be horrible for Hagrid and perhaps > lead him into a situation that causes his own death. What do you all > make of this? > > "katienichol" bboy_mn replies: ** It was Borgin & Burkes in Knockturn Alley, not Flourish and Blotts; that's the book store. Opals in the story have alway puzzled me too, but I never thought to bring it up. Why Opals? Why not Rubes? Why not Emeralds? Why not Pearls? Can anyone tell me if Opals have a special significants in British or French culture? Are there Opal mines in France or one of the countries that was a French terrritory? The use of Opals just seemed odd. When I think of precious/semi-precious stones, Opals are not the ones that spring to mind first, and I'm sure they are not the ones that come to most people's minds. I know I'm not adding much to this discussion other that to agree with you that I find the presents of and repeated mention of Opal odd. The problem is, JKR is so tricky in inserting seemingly insignificant details that become very significant later, as well as inserting things that seem significant but are never heard from again, that I can't even begin to speculate. Which is very unusual because I can usually conjure up some speculation on virtually everything. Again, I know I didn't help, but I agree, something is up with Opals. Just a few (very few) thoughts. bboy_mn From seaducer9 at comcast.net Sat Dec 14 04:04:28 2002 From: seaducer9 at comcast.net (seaducer9) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:04:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: importance of opals References: Message-ID: <005201c2a325$e5cc8ae0$7fb02744@mnhwkn01.nj.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48311 bboy_mn wrote: >Can anyone tell me if Opals have a special significants in British or >French culture? Are there Opal mines in France or one of the countries >that was a French terrritory? >From what I know the largest opal producing country is Australia, a former British penal colony. As for why opals are mentioned in canon, well, JKR may have a thing for them, or she may try to create some sort of magical properties in them. Opals for those that do not know are gem stones that are polished with a pattern that traces all through the surface. They can come in all the colors of the rainbow as well as black. I can't remember exactly but in the NW US a few years back "magic gem bags" were popular among the sub-culture, each stone held a different meaning or purpose and the bag was worn as a necklace. Opals were among the most popular stone, with the different colored ones meaning or performing different functions. I was also friends with a few Wicca at that time and opals were very popular with them as well. This may all be nothing, but, well, there it is. Drew Z. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrsbonsai at charter.net Sat Dec 14 04:17:27 2002 From: mrsbonsai at charter.net (jastrangfeld ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 04:17:27 -0000 Subject: *evil eye opal* or *hope, innocence & purity opal*? was: importance of opal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48312 Well I decided to do some digging :) I've heard of *cursed* necklaces on the discovery channel. So this could be interesting! Alright, so we have a trade off of beliefs here. Could be representing good or evil in HP! So what could we possibly come up with as logical conclusions then? If JK were trying to connect the opal necklace with the opal ring which killed so many? Or do Madam Maxime's opals represent that hope, innocence, and purity? Knowing where JK gets some of her resources might help. So here are the legends I found, if anyone wants to make something of them? Julie http://www.jewelryexpert.com/articles/opal.htm "Opal, since early Roman times, was regarded as one of the most treasured gems until the 19th century, when Sir Walter Scott's novel "Ann of Geierstein" associated this fiery stone with an unfortunate heroine. The story's heroine, accused of being a demon, died shortly after her opal lost all its color when sprinkled with holy water. As the book became more popular, superstition also increased and opal became associated with bad luck. But this was just superstition and not fact! Queen Victoria helped dispel the curse on opal by giving opal jewelry to relatives as wedding gifts." http://www.rocksonfire.com/About-Opals.htm " The myth of 'bad luck' opals: The treasure chambers of the European monarchies contain uncountable and unbelievably beautiful pieces of opal jewelry. With the discovery of the Australian opal fields and its production of unexpected high quantities of precious opal, the myth was born that the wearer of an opal would bear the curse of bad luck. The main reason for this myth was, according to some sources, that is was now possible for middleclass people to own one of these highly-desired gems, previously only available to the aristocracy. So why not try to scare "them" away to keep the privilege of owning this Queen of Gems in the hand of some chosen ones? Thank goodness intelligence remained victorious, so that today everyone who wants to, can own and enjoy an opal." Oh, and I really love the implications of this one :) http://www.tucsonshowguide.com/stories/sep01/opal.cfm "While many stones were prized for their positive magical qualities, others were denounced as vessels of evil. No gem was more vilified than the poor opal. Witches and sorcerers supposedly used black opals to increase their own magical powers or to focus them like laser beams on people they wanted to harm. Medieval Europeans dreaded the opal because of its resemblance to "the Evil Eye," and its superficial likeness to the optical organs of cats, toads, snakes, and other common creatures with hellish affiliations. The opal's nasty reputation has troubled folklorists for centuries. Fantastic legends have grown up around this harmless stone, cautionary tales designed to discourage those who might otherwise find themselves mortally attracted by its fiery brilliance. To this day, the odd prejudice against opals remains alive and well in some corners of the world, especially in the backwaters of southern Europe and the Middle East, where jewelers won't carry opals and customers won't buy them. Opal's vibrant colors make it a perfect stone for jewelry, despite its reputation for bad luck. Boulder opal courtesy AGTA, photo by John Parrish. Opals are supposed to be bad luck. They are also thought to have teleportation powers. A piece of opal jewelry might suddenly disappear from some obvious place, only to turn up weeks or months later in a refrigerator freezer, the breast pocket of a T-shirt, the glove compartment of the family car, or some other absurd location. An opal completely contaminated with evil is believed capable of maiming or even killing a person foolish enough to wear or own it. Tales alleging to prove this are few in number, but the belief persists nevertheless, like those old but curiously tenacious admonitions about walking under ladders, stepping on a crack in the sidewalk, or allowing a black cat to dart across one's path. Popular superstitions such as these will be with us always, but however fanciful they may be, most have prosaic origins. "A possible explanation of the superstitious dread that opal used to excite some time ago may be found in the fact that lapidaries and gem-setters to whom opals were entrusted were sometimes so unfortunate as to fracture them in the process of cutting or setting," wrote George Frederick Kunz in The Curious Lore of Precious Stones. "This was frequently due to no fault on the part of the cutters or setters, but was owing to the natural brittleness of the opal. As such workmen are responsible to the owners for any injury to the gems, they would soon acquire a prejudice against opals, and would come to regard them as unlucky stones. Very widespread superstitions have no more foundation than this, for the original cause, sometimes quite a rational one, is soon lost sight of and popular fantasy suggests something entirely different and better calculated to appeal to the imagination." Medieval Europeans shunned opal because of its likeness to the eyes of several "evil" animals, such as cats. Photo by Morgan Beard. LEFT: Black opal (left) and boulder opal (right), courtesy AGTA, photo by John Parrish. Evil Ties Fear of the Evil Eye, common to cultures the world over, was and remains especially acute in the Mediterranean. Simply defined, the term signifies a covetous or malicious glance meant to bring harm. Witches were thought to possess this awful power in great abundance, though common people with unrealized magical talents could also wield it, albeit unconsciously. The Eye did its stuff directly and indirectly. It could strike its intended victim sick or dead on the spot, or kill family members, blight crops, sicken livestock, or summon a storm with the muscle to level a house, a village, or an entire town. The Evil Eye's association with the opal probably originated in Elizabethan England. There the stones were called "ophals," a shortening of the word ophthalmos, which referred to the human eye. The Evil Eye was accepted as fact in 16th Century Britain, as was belief in omens and auguries. In the minds of superstitious Elizabethans, the occult link between ophals and ophthalmos was both obvious and ominous. White opal, courtesy AGTA. Photo by John Parrish. Fear of the Eye crossed the Atlantic with European settlers. In Puritan New England, colonists wore heart-shaped pendants with prayers inside to protect themselves from the godless gaze of Satan's servants - witches, sorcerers, and magic workers who could be found in every forest clearing, every abandoned barn, and under every bed. Ironically, they had it all wrong. The word opal had actually descended from the Roman "opalus," an ancestor of the modern opal that was thought to heal the blind and make a person invisible to his enemies. Opalus was among the most virtuous of stones. To the Romans, who in their own way were even more superstitious than the Elizabethans, it was certainly no kin to the Evil Eye. Opal also has unfortunate ties to the Black Plague, an affliction that struck in the middle of the 14th Century, ultimately eradicating more than a third of Europe's population and much more in neighboring territories. As the plague put Europe under siege, desperate people searched for a scapegoat. They found several in the persons of Jews, heretics, and, of course, the much-maligned opal. "The year 1348, an astrological Martial sub-cycle, saw Venice assailed by destructive earthquakes, tidal waves and the Plague," wrote Isidore Kozminsky in The Magic and Science of Jewels and Stones. "The epidemic in a few months carried off two-thirds of the population of the city sparing neither rich nor poor, young nor old. It is said that at this time the opal was a favorite gem with Italian jewelers, being much used in their work. It is further said that opals worn by those stricken became suddenly brilliant and that the luster entirely departed with the death of the wearer. Story further tells that the opal then became an object of dread and was associated with the death of the victim." A historic, 594-gram opal from the Vienna Collection, found in 1672. Photo courtesy Naturhistorisches Museum Wien and ExtraLapis. Many centuries later, a Spanish king would sully the opal's already sordid reputation further still. In the late 19th Century, Alfonzo XII fell madly in love with a beautiful aristocrat named the Comtesse de Castiglione. The Comtesse reciprocated the King's affection, but months before the pair were to wed the faithless Alfonzo married another woman, the Princess Mercedes. Vowing to get even, the Comtesse sent the couple a wedding present in the form of a magnificent opal set in a huge ring of the purest gold. The princess was immediately smitten by the gift and insisted that her husband slip it on her finger. He obliged, and two months later the princess mysteriously died. After the funeral Alfonzo gave the ring to his grandmother, Queen Christina, who almost immediately thereafter also expired. After that the ring passed to Alfonzo's sister, the Infanta Maria del Pilar. Maria died as well, apparently victim to the same weird illness that had taken the other two women. The ring was up for grabs yet again, and when Alfonzo's sister-in-law expressed an interest, he let her have it with the usual result. BELOW: Matrix opal set in a decorative box from the Huber Collection, circa 1790. Photo by Peter Huber, courtesy ExtraLapis. Deeply depressed by then, the King decided to end it all by slipping the ring on his own finger, just as Cleopatra had embraced the asp to terminate her own misery. In little over a month, the ring did to Alfonzo what the snake had done to the Egyptian Queen. The ring was finally attached to a gold chain and strung around the neck of a statue of the patron saint of Madrid, the Virgin of Alumdena. That put an end to the incredible chain of tragic circumstances, but was the gem really responsible for the calamities besetting this royal family? According to Kozminsky, it seems pretty unlikely. "At this time it must be remembered that cholera was raging through Spain," he writes in The Magic and Science of Jewels and Stones. "Over 100,000 people died of it during the summer and autumn of 1885. It attacked all classes from the palace of the king to the hut of the peasant, some accounts giving the death estimate at 50 percent of the population. It would be as obviously ridiculous to hold the opal responsible for this scourge as it was to do so in the previously noted plague at Venice. All that may be said is that in this case the opal was not a talisman of good for King Alfonzo XII of Spain and to those who received it from his hand, and that in the philosophy of sympathetic attraction and repulsion man, stones, metals and all natural objects come under the same law." Black opal, probably the most popular variety. Opal courtesy AGTA, photo by John Parrish. Fear and loathing of the opal did not discourage the development of a counter folklore which cast the stone as a symbol of hope, innocence, and purity. The Arabs of Mohammed's time were quite enamored of the gem, and were convinced they were carried to earth on bolts of lightning. European writers and poets of the Middle Ages also sang the opal's praises, claiming it had curative effect on bad eyes, protected children from predatory animals, banished evil, and made entertainments, friendships, and romances much more intense and enjoyable. Fair-haired girls in Germany and Scandinavia were encouraged to wear opal pins in their hair, as they were thought to add magical luster to their golden locks and protect them from freezing rain, wind, and other vicissitudes of the Nordic climate. Despite all of this and more, the bad rap against opals has stuck through the ages. This can be partially explained by human nature. For most people, a bad opal will always have more appeal than a good one, a cursed opal more fascination than an opal that brings good luck, wards off wicked influences, or cures. We humans love a mystery, and the darker the mystery, the better we like it. " Well if that didn't strike your fancy, we'll just borrow a bit of fan fiction here . . . : http://www.dprophet.com/iofy/chap20pg1.html Light, steel hued clouds flew towards Hogwarts, bringing brilliant white flurries of snow to the grounds. Winter arrived in high style, announcing its presence with more snow than Hogwarts had seen in quite some time. The peaceful scene of light snowflakes gliding slowly to the soft white earth didn't quell the stress and anxiety felt within the castle walls. Snape had ordered that classes should resume as normally as possible. Transfiguration was the only class left off the student's schedules. All of the Professors seemed tired, agitated and horribly on edge. In the Gryffindor fourth years' History of Magic lesson, Professor Binns actually swore when he tried to pick up a piece of chalk, but his fingers simply glided through it. He had forgotten he was dead again. "Professor!" exclaimed Hermione, shocked by the phrase that left Binns' mouth. "Oh, er, excuse me," muttered Professor Binns. "Where was I?" "Opals, sir," said Lavender Brown timidly. "Yes, opals " Professor Binns seemed dazed. He wasn't the only one; it seemed all the Professors had lost their trains of thought and the next train wasn't due back at the station for ages. "Opals," continued Professor Binns, "Are the subject of an easily forgotten myth. The myth itself, while familiar to both Muggles and the wizarding community, is so disturbing, most choose to forget it. Can anyone explain to me the most common attributes of the opal?" Hermione immediately raised her hand. "Yes, Ms. Granger?" "Opals are the birthstone for the month of October and they're known for the way they reflect to many different shades of color." "Well done, Granger," said Binns. "But can anyone tell me about the myth behind those reflections?" Ron, turning out of instinct to look at Hermione, fell off his chair. "Mr. Weasley," said Binns flatly, "You're supposed to raise your hand, not touch the floor. What is it?" "Sorry," said Ron, brushing off his knees. "Hermione didn't raise her hand." "I beg your pardon," said Binns seriously while a few of the students started to giggle and Hermione started turning red in the face. "Hermione always raises her hand," said Ron blankly. Professor Binns rolled his eyes as Ron mouthed, "I'm sorry" to Hermione. "Moving on," said Binns, "The legend states that if anyone who was not born in the month of October wears an opal, their soul will be sold to that opal and upon their 'death', their soul will be taken and placed in the stone as a constant reminder to those who would dare wear a cursed opal. It is said that the more colors an opal reflects, the more poor souls have been trapped inside." The eyes of many of the students grew wider in shock. They'd heard many legends in History of Magic, but none were so gruesome as this. Immediately a few hands shot into the air. "Yes, Mr. Thomas?" "Where did the legend start?" asked Dean. Professor Binns noticed a certain degree of excitement in Dean Thomas' voice a certain degree of excitement he'd never before seen in his class. He didn't know what to make of it; perhaps Dean was ill and he should call Madam Pomfrey. "It's not certain where the legend started, perhaps a mead house somewhere. Although, supposedly the first case of a soul being 'sold' to the opal occurred in ancient Egypt when Pharaoh Akhenaten gave his wife, Queen Nefertiti, an opal pendant. Muggle Egyptologists know Pharaoh Akhenaten died of a broken heart but they only, according to this legend, knew half the story. Supposedly, his High Priest - a wizard, of course - informed the Pharaoh that his wife was indeed not dead, but the opal had come to claim its possession. Akhenaten, knowing he was responsible for his wife's fate, died not only of a broken heart, but an unbearably guilty conscience." A hush fell over the class and then within a few moments of awed silence, five more hands shot into the air. "Yes, Seamus?" "Is is there anyway to get a soul out of an an opal?" asked Seamus breathlessly. Professor Binns thought Seamus looked just as ill as poor Dean Thomas. Perhaps there was an epidemic on his hands. "That is unknown, but there have been a few theories," answered Binns. "Next Mr. Longbottom." "Has anyone figured out how to how to to capture someone's soul in an opal, even if they were born in October?" Neville stuttered. Poor Mr. Longbottom he must have caught this virus worse than the others. He looks as if he might faint. He looks as if he might wet himself, poor chap. "Rumors circulated for a while that there might be a way to do this, but nothing was ever confirmed. It is just a legend and there have been no confirmed accounts of such a thing happening," assured Professor Binns. "Although it always looks as if the person just died of natural causes, so one might never know." Binns looked around the class and saw that all hands had been lowered thoughtfully and maybe the epidemic had resolved itself. They were all quiet again, thank heavens. No need to alert Madam Pomfrey. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Dec 14 04:27:52 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:27:52 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: importance of opals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DFB4DF8.8541.72F6E3@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 48313 On 14 Dec 2002 at 3:46, Steve bboy_mn at yahoo.com wrote: > Can anyone tell me if Opals have a special significants in British or > French culture? Are there Opal mines in France or one of the countries > that was a French terrritory? Interesting snippet - possibly of relevance. According to a Wiccan of my acquaintance who deals in such stones, opals have a lot of magical properties and the most powerful of these come from the Lightning Ridge area of Australia. Also, a joint British/Australian children's TV series of the mid 1990s (Genie from Downunder) involved a magical opal amulet. It could just be that they are such cool stones - such an explosion of colour - not just simple faceted gems and even cheap ones can be visually impressive - they might just appeal to JKR. 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 Audra1976 at aol.com Sat Dec 14 05:20:22 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:20:22 EST Subject: Opals and Madame Maxime Message-ID: <21.28b0806f.2b2c1996@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48314 When I was little, I had a friend named Opal. Her birthday was in October, so that was also her birthstone. My mom told me that it is supposed to be unlucky to wear opals if they are not your birthstone--a shame, because I thought they were so pretty, and my birthstone is peridot, which I don't like too much. So here's what I found when I searched for opals on Google: The reputation of opal as an unlucky stone is partly recent, grown out of the dislike of gem-setters of a century ago in working with the difficult and brittle stone. During the Crusades, women would bestow a gem on their love to bring good fortune in battle and a safe return. But if an opal given as a love token split or cracked, not an unheard of accident for such brittle stones, this was a sign of bad luck and possibly that the owner had been unfaithful. Perhaps the opal necklace was cursed by a wizard whose spouse had been unfaithful. To the Greeks, opals symbolized hope, innocence, purity, and fidelity. They were believed to benefit eyesight and memory. There are a lot of "eye" connectons to the opal. Some believe the name "opal" was derived from the Greek word for eye, "ophthalmos." According to Plato?s Republic, an opal ring turned inward to the palm made the wearer invisible, and so it was referred to as the "Stone of Thieves." According to medieval folklore, gazing upon opal was supposed to be good for the eyes. Opal is said to be useful in enhancing the inner vision of seers and is excellent for meditation and divination. Arabs believed that opals fell from Heaven in flashes of lightning. Opals were considered a protector from lightning. The Egyptians and Babylonians held opal in high esteem as a powerful protective amulet against disease and referred to it as the ?Gem of the Gods.? Opals were once said to bring good fortune because they possessed the colors, and therefore all the powers, of all gemstones. A New Age belief is that opals are the repositories of large amounts of energy. Those who are unable to direct such energies should not wear them, and they are not recommended for teenagers. Fire opals in particular should never be worn by volatile people who suppress their feelings. Many say that an opal has a soul of their very own, and it attunes it?s soul to that of the person who wears it. I hope the cursed opal necklace isn't a sign of bad things to come with Madame Maxime. IMO, she's the most interesting female character JKR has introduced yet. I like to think that Madame Maxime wears opals because she's a beautiful, powerful. eclectic woman, and a Libra. Libras are very elegant, refined, and charming. I think that fits Madame Maxime to a tee. They are also supposed to be romantics. I'll be happy if she and Hagrid finally get together. Maybe some of her good fashion sense can rub off on him too. ;) Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 06:02:40 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 06:02:40 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: <12a.1d614eb6.2b2bba56@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48315 For an remedy to my melancholy, Sherry suggested: >Perhaps a large brandy? It worked for Vernon Dursley... Well Sherry, Keats advices against that too since all it does really is "drown the wakeful anguish of the soul". I think I'll happily settle for Dumbledore's remedy - Hot Chocolate. So with a mug full sitting next to me and my melancholy cloud lifting, I will attempt to find what it is I was asking in the first place. Oh and since this fractured into two different discussions, I'll answer your bit in another post CK. So-let me recap, for my own sanity. I asked if the "seeking" of the book is implied in the text as being a singular-pursuit and thus an encouraged course of action by Voldemort, which is not a good thing since if *he* likes it then it must be wrong. If that is so, then Harry's education in his role of "seeker" is contradictory to this notion and could in fact be a flaw in his education. I think this matters because there is a lot of parallels between Voldemort and both Crouchs and then between those Crouchs and Harry. Harry could possibly be heading down a dangerous path if he is not well guided. Voldemort and Crouch Sr.: single minded pursuit and let nothing (good/evil) get in the way Compare to Harry: single minded pursuit of snitch and does not let dementors, bludgers, other opponents, rain, or bucking brooms get in his way. Problem: Voldemort and Crouch Sr. go too far and let their pursuit completely consume their soul Harry, for right now, just lets it break his arm. A fact that is not discouraged by the professors or students. Voldemort and Barty Jr.: idolize dead mother as their savior Harry: greatly respects his dead mother and she *was* his savior Problem: Voldie's and Jr.'s idolization goes too far and becomes perverted into saint worship Harry, for right now, just defends her honorably These parallels are there and can become dangerous for Harry if he lets these actions and thoughts go too far. That is why I question Voldie's creed. Harry *is* an awful lot like the intelligent bad guys to date, and from the above, it seems he is playing with a dangerous fire and is even to an extent, encouraged to do so. But - it is his choices that keep him from becoming evil. He chooses to toy with the fire, but not let it consume him. He is told just enough to deeply appreciate his mother, but not enough to make her human. She *is* Saint Lily right now as annoying as that is. She has done no wrong in Harry's eyes. James has. James chose the wrong secret keeper. James snuck around Hogwarts with his friends as a stag. James is human. Lily is not. *That* is dangerous. That was the fuel for Voldie's and Barty Jr.'s obsessions with their own mothers and caused them to turn to think there is no good and evil. Now, I was also trying to draw the same parallel with the seeking of the three. Voldie and Crouch Sr. *do* take their pursuits too far in JKR's eyes, and she says so in the text clearly. She says their seeking is wrong, and y'all pointed out why it is wrong in her eyes. Not because it is the seeking style, but because of what they did while they sought. They crossed the faint line between good and evil and became hypocritical. Well, Crouch Sr, did, but Voldemort never professed to be good, so he is just evil. So with Harry, I was also trying to imply, I think, that he too is playing awful close to this line. He *does* play Quidditch in a single-minded dedicated way. He does this so much that he breaks his arm and works hard to not let *anything* affect his game. While his motives are still pure, he is being taught that singular pursuit is alright, but he is not being taught when he would cross that line. Breaking his arm was not too far. Spending his free waking hours alone with boggarts and a werewolf was not too far. Even pushing and shoving is not too far. Has Harry been taught when "seeking" becomes obsession? Frankly, single-minded pursuit is a hop, jump, and a step right next to obsession. And obsession leads to the grey morality between good and evil and thus was Crouch Sr's downfall. He did not choose to be evil like Voldemort. He was boiled up to it. And that is what I fear. This lack of guidance in Harry's life. Dumbledore, nor anyone else, does not tell Harry, while his mother was a wonderful, sacrificing woman; she was also human and made mistakes. She is not someone to idolize. Even though, this was a downfall for Barty Jr. and Voldemort, Dumbledore does not worry that *Harry* would be susceptible to this. That is folly on his part in my mind. Really Harry is *more* susceptible because she actually *did* save his life. Now with the "seeking", it has been shown that Harry has been instructed in the encouraged forms of seeking. In task two, he was awarded more points for not being of a one track mind. That alone would tell him a lot, but did he learn that though? Harry did say that he was being stupid for his actions. He was embarrassed because of them. Even though he got more points, we left that task wondering if Harry had it to do over again, would he have just cut Ron out and gone back to the surface? He would of arrived first and still had the most points. Did Harry learn that it *was* better, more noble, for him to do what he did? Seems to me, he just learned that sometimes you get lucky with judges. But, I really like the Krum example of seeking because Harry admires him so much during and after QWC. Harry learns what "real" talent in seeking is, so maybe there is hope in Harry's skilled seeking decisions after all. To play fair and even rough, but not let that honor down. I am scared of single-minded seeking because it is *so* close to obsession, and Harry has not been taught to avoid that. Obsession is such an ugly affair. He has seen nice obsession with Oliver Wood. Wait - he has seen the ugly obsession. Sirius and Crouch Sr. He has seen what happens to one if they *have* become truly obsessive. But does Harry know what to do to avoid going that far? Does he know how to not let himself boil up to that point? So - where am I in figuring out the creed? What does JKR mean by the words "seek", "weak", and "power"? I say: seek- single minded pursuits weak- those that do not engage in said seeking power- achieved goal So from that the "bad" creed would read: "There is no good and evil, there is only achievable goals and those who do not engage in single-mindedly pursuing them. So with that good and evil part added, can all be happy? Did I incorporate all the ideas at present? They all are wonderful, so I greatly wanted to. This way the motive behind the action is there, the action is defined to what is implied, and the weak are those that do not achieve in this way. Seems, that is a more exact representation of what Voldemort admires, JKR finds disdainful, and what Harry is teetering between. As before, Harry has all the qualities of both sides of good and evil, but because of his education (at Hogwarts and at the Dursley's), he is able to refrain from falling off the tightrope. Or at least I *hope* he is. I see holes in his education. Mostly surrounding his mother. Melody From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 06:19:18 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 06:19:18 -0000 Subject: L. Malfoy & Longbottoms: was(Re: Bertha Jorkins & Neville (comparison)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48316 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Strix " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr > " wrote: > > Longbottoms are being kept incapacitated> > > Speaking of Lucius' influence, does anyone suppose that his > large > > contributions to St. Mungus' Hospital could be buying him > influence > > there which is keeping the Longbottoms incapacitated? > I'll have to go back and read the parts of canon that you mention; > I find the theory tantalizing and I need to do my homework on it, > so to speak. > > So, does it have an acronym? :) > > Strix Hey, cool! I've always wanted to suggest an acronym! How about: M.A.E.V.O.L.E.N.C.E. -- Malfoy's Affluence Lends Effectiveness: Veiledly Opposes Longbottoms' Escaping Needless Cruciatus Effects! And, "veiledly" is *too* a word -- it's in my Scrabble dictionary! A quick summary, then: According to Mr. Fudge, speaking in the top box at the QWC, "Lucius has just given a *very* generous contribution to St. Mungo's Holpital for Magical Maladies and Injuries, Arthur. He's here as my guest." Now, Lucius hardly cares about poor, sick wizards, and he didn't need to smarm up to Fudge to get good seats at the QWC. Mr. Lucius Malfoy is well known for using his influence to get what he wants. He used his postion as a governor of Hogwarts to get Dumbledore removed as headmaster in CoS (though unfortunately for Lucius, he ended up losing his post as a governor, too). He used his influence in the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures to get Buckbeak condemned. He even used the gift of new racing brooms to get his son on the house quidditch team. Rita Skeeter writes, in her article titled "Harry Potter, Disturbed and Dangerous": "It is possible, say top experts at St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries, that Potter's brain was affected by the attack inflicted upon him by You-Know-Who, and that his insistence that the scar is still hurting is an expression of his deep-seated confusion. 'He might even be pretending,' said one specialist. 'This could be a plea for attention.'" This article was written after Rita witnessed Harry having the dream in Divination class. It certainly suggests that there could be unsavory people on the staff of St. Mungo's. And, of course, the Longbottoms are in St. Mungo's, insane. M.A.L.E.V.O.L.E.N.C.E. (should you choose to accept the acronym), posits that Lucius Malfoy has been using donations to gain influence at the hospital, in order to ensure that the Longbottoms remain in the care of seemingly caring (but in fact, Evil) wizards who are keeping them in an artificially prolonged state of insanity. Howzat? Anne who really needs to think up a better signature... From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 06:36:36 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 06:36:36 -0000 Subject: Evil and Stuff (was: seeking...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48317 I wrote: >Voldemort is rotten to the core, I can't help but remember he *is* >human. Well, a part of him I'm sure is somewhere in there. While I >may kid around with Voldie becoming redeemed at the end, I do believe >it is a viable option because he is still human. CK wrote: >>I'm not sure. First the wisp-o-mort, then the back of someone else's >>head and unicorn's blood, then the ugly baby, then Flatface... I >>think Rowling has done a pretty good job of dehumanizing Voldemort. >>I'm not saying that it's completely impossible to redeem him. In >>theory, it's still a possibility. I just wouldn't put too many eggs >>in that basket. Yes, JKR has painted a rather ugly picture. A picture of a man that is barely seen as a man. Seems that is what pure evil does to a person in fiction. It consumes them first in the heart and bleeds out in appearance to the point that they are as ugly outside as in. Well, that is what happens in cartoons anyway. And like cartoons, the evil bad guy is just that. Evil drawn ugly so that we are repulsed by it. Is this what JKR wants? Us to see Voldemort as this ugly shell of a person that is not really human so that we hate despise evil more and rejoin in its demise? Seems that is a rather shallow way create a bad guy. I firmly believe in Voldemort having a human soul that is not on a one-way ticket to hell. He most likely is, but that is just an assumption based on my previous dealings with evil overlords in fiction. They rarely turn a 180. However, no matter what happens to his shell, he is a human being. He puts his robe on a sleeve at the time like the rest of them. He just had to pretend for a while there. To rob Voldemort of his humanity creates a beast who's death is not a moral decision to be made. I think the *worst*, absolute *worst* thing, Harry could do is forget Voldemort is in fact human. No matter what he looks like, Voldemort is equal to Harry in the realm of being born and growing up and making decisions. If Harry decides that Voldemort is no longer a man, then Harry decides that Voldemort is not subject to the same checks and balances of morality as the rest. This is the fault Crouch Sr. made. He thought the DE's were not longer human, and thus they are not subject to the same privileges. They are just a pest that needs to be exterminated....quickly. To dehumanized Voldemort would make killing him easier for all, but defeat the point of the lessons learned so far in the series. Melody From bobafett at harbornet.com Sat Dec 14 06:50:54 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:50:54 -0800 Subject: Another thought WAS [Re: Bertha Jorkins & Neville (comparison)) References: Message-ID: <002001c2a33d$282f0d60$5dedaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48318 Still going under the assumption that Neville is under a memory charm. Perhaps the people in the hospital aren't his parents? Perhaps they were chosen by his grandmother so he wouldn't have to find out his father was Peter Pettigrew? I know unlikely, but how many loops have been turned in books 1-4? So you never know ;) BoBaFeTT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 07:59:24 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 07:59:24 -0000 Subject: Evil and Stuff (was: seeking...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " < Malady579 at h...> wrote: > I wrote: > >Voldemort is rotten to the core, I can't help but remember he *is* > >human. Well, a part of him I'm sure is somewhere in there. While I > >may kid around with Voldie becoming redeemed at the end, I do believe > >it is a viable option because he is still human. > > CK wrote: > >>I'm not sure. First the wisp-o-mort, then the back of someone else's > >>head and unicorn's blood, then the ugly baby, then Flatface... I > >>think Rowling has done a pretty good job of dehumanizing Voldemort. > >>I'm not saying that it's completely impossible to redeem him. In > >>theory, it's still a possibility. I just wouldn't put too many eggs > >>in that basket. > > > Yes, JKR has painted a rather ugly picture. A picture of a man that > is barely seen as a man. Seems that is what pure evil does to a > person in fiction. It consumes them first in the heart and bleeds out > in appearance to the point that they are as ugly outside as in. Well, > that is what happens in cartoons anyway. And like cartoons, the evil > bad guy is just that. Evil drawn ugly so that we are repulsed by it. Also classic literature - "The Portrait of Dorian Grey," IIRC. > Is this what JKR wants? Us to see Voldemort as this ugly shell of a > person that is not really human so that we hate despise evil more and > rejoin in its demise? Seems that is a rather shallow way create a bad > guy. Why? Just because he's thoroughly evil doesn't make him one- dimensional. > To dehumanized Voldemort would make killing him easier for all, but > defeat the point of the lessons learned so far in the series. Oh, I don't agree. I think that making him not-human makes the morality of killing him more questionable. Because if he IS human, then the choice is simple: Harry may not kill him. Period. As a 'human being,' yeah, he has the choice. But as the archetypal virtuous hero, he may not kill another human being. However, if Voldemort isn't human, it removes that assurance. Maybe he's past redemption. Maybe there is no longer anything worth saving. And yet... and yet he USED to be human. Does that count for anything? I think we'll find out if it means anything to Harry. ;) CK From voldemort at tut.by Sat Dec 14 12:08:24 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:08:24 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] There is only power In-Reply-To: <1039810508.69132@incanmonkey.com> References: <1039810508.69132@incanmonkey.com> Message-ID: <372235244.20021214140824@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48320 Greetings! > bloubet wrote: bic> (all IMHO, of course) Power is a tool. You can have bic> good and evil, and also have power. If you use power as bic> a tool for good, you're still good. If you use it as a bic> tool for evil, you're still evil. Power is neutral. bic> Seeking power is not evil. Power can be used for good, bic> and can be obtained without hurting yourself or anyone bic> else. Questionable, of course. Tolkien was quite adamant at it: Power *is* Evil. Then there's "power corrupts" theory, which I consider absolutely correct (btw do you know the political life as it is? Not a nice sight, I assure you, even if you are "on the side of Good"). As for belief that power can be obtained without hurting anyone else, I find that absolutely improbable. Power is power, and there's not unlimited amount of it, and whichever power exists, it already belongs to someone, so it's simply impossible to gain power without crossing someone else's interests (which interests might actually be very good and noble indeed). bic> Voldemort's problems are twofold. (1) He doesn't see a bic> line between good and evil, or even a continuum, for bic> that matter. There is no moral judgment to be passed on bic> any action. It's not just unimportant -- it doesn't bic> exist. Most people can see a morality continuum, and bic> know that it affects their choices. While most of us bic> would probably say that Voldemort is *wrong* in this bic> belief, we can at least say that he is out of step with bic> most of the rest of humanity. Well, we can't really say that Voldemort is wrong... not until we give him a free reign and see what happens. His beliefs are different, aye, but all people have different beliefs, and nobody has yet proved that being ruled by someone with same beliefs is better than being ruled by someone with different ones. Among other things, rulers of second type have greater chances to remain in history books... ;) and not necessarily as villains... :) Which of course doesn't mean everyone should just succumb to him. "Of course we can't say that our values are better than values of fundamentalists. They are not better. They are OUR values." (S. Pereglegin). bic> (2) He believes that the search for power is the only bic> true meaning to life. If you don't seek power, it's bic> because you're too weak to try, you don't have the guts bic> or the strength to reach out and grab all the power bic> that can be yours. And this of course is his greatest weakness. Too simple division of humanity into two parts never works. Of course, one needs good brains to make good use of this weakness, but then nobody did call Dumbledore stupid. bic> What will he do once he's the most powerful? I don't bic> think he's really thought that far ahead. And THAT is bic> his second problem. His life has been built around the bic> pursuit of a tool, with no goal in mind to use it for. bic> How empty is that? Not empty at all until it's done. And if it's never done, then his life is full of meaning. He has the goal in mind, a great goal, maybe even impossible one, but many people don't have a goal in life at all. Whose life is emptier then? Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From mo.hue at web.de Sat Dec 14 13:17:43 2002 From: mo.hue at web.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:17:43 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius?/the Prank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48321 On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:05:48 -0000, "pippin_999 " wrote: > >I said: >> >> I always understood from what Lupin was saying in PoA that >Sirius apparently didn't do anything else. It was up to Snape to >use this information like he did. Don't get me wrong, I don't think >Sirius should have told him how to get into the Willow, but it's not >like he dragged him there.<< Pippin replied: >I see I've expressed myself with my usual lack of clarity. Let me >try again. My [hypothetical] sequence of events goes like this. Don't know if you lacked clarity the first time, but I like your scenario, it sounds plausible. ;) [explanation snipped] >Me again: >> Think of the scene in PoA when Malfoy and his friends try to >frighten Harry to death by playing Dementors during the >Quidditch match. That could have very well killed him if >Dumbledore hadn't slowed his fall.<< Pippin: >You're confusing two incidents. The fall came from the *real* >Dementors during the previous match. Oops, you're absolutely right here (someone must have memory charmed me ;-)), but still... >Draco couldn't have >possibly caused Harry to go into a trance and fall off his broom. No, you're right, he couldn't have, but did he really know this? He'd heard Harry had fainted on the train when the Dementor searched his compartment, but he can't very well know why, and no one else fainted. Then he saw Harry fall off his broom during the first match, but unless he lives something similar to what Harry goes through if he comes near a Dementor, I'd say he would only have a very vague idea about what causes Harry to freak, and therefore he might very well have thought, 'Hey, if he falls off again, he won't catch the Snitch and Gryffindor will lose'. My idea still is that he wanted to scare the hell out of Harry and prevent Gryffindor from winning, but if Harry would really freak at the mere sight of a Dementor (which I still believe Draco thought), he might have fallen off his broom again, and Draco didn't think through the consequences of what would happen to *him* if famous Harry Potter was seriously hurt or even died. >Well, risking a salvo from the Draco Apologists, Draco would >*like* to be thought capable of murder. We overhear him wishing >he could help the Heir of Slytherin and hoping that Granger will >die. Hm, what am I doing here, I don't even like Draco... Don't you think he might have been just boasting and maybe repeating what he heard at home all the time? He's twelve in CoS, and even if you say you hope someone would die, it's a long way from saying so to actually going there. I perfectly believe Lucius capable of murder and torture, and this might very well be the philosophy Draco is presented with all day when he's at home, but I think at twelve he's not really up to thinking through all the consequences this implies. >However, even in the Wizarding World, merely wishing that >someone would die is not a crime. Nor is it in the Muggle World, or is it? > I think Dumbledore would have been confident that he could >keep things quiet, even if he had to expel somebody. And I think >he would have done that, at least, if he could have proved that >Sirius knew what Lupin was and deliberately planned for Snape >to encounter him. Hm, but is the latter easy to prove? I don't think so. The part that isn't easy to prove is the "deliberately planned". And I doubt it was. It seems that Snape was spying all the time on the Marauders; what I see is that Sirius - who might have been still a bit more hotheaded as a teen - let the information slip in a moment when he was more exasperated than usually. I still don't think Dumbledore would have expelled Sirius even if he *had* known that Sirius knew what Lupin was, unless he thought Sirius was a hopeless case anyway. We know Dumbledore likes to give second chances, you will think twice before you expel one of the most gifted students in the whole school, even if he exhibits a deplorably immature teenage behaviour. >Me again: >> I think Snape must have known all along that Sirius knew >about Lupin, or him suspecting Lupin to be in on the joke doesn't >make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should Sirius tell him >where to go if he didn'tknow what was waiting for him there? > >My idea is that Snape *believed* that Sirius knew about Lupin, >but couldn't prove it, and when he finally heard that Sirius admit >that, yes, he did know about Lupin, Snape was illogically >confirmed in his belief Lupin knowing about the prank. >Interestingly, with Crookshanks there to spot lying, Lupin never >denies having been involved. He doesn't deny it, that's true, but he doesn't confirm it either, or does he? To me it sounded as if he was more than a bit embarrassed that Sirius "used" him to play that trick on Snape, but face to Harry, who had just discovered that his godfather wasn't a murderer after all, he didn't want to pin the whole blame on Sirius alone. Lupin strikes me as a very diplomatic person, I think he just didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings when he talked about his "involvement" in the prank. > Sherry wrote: > >> If I'm wrong, and Sirius' comments are a true reflection of his beliefs, >then >> is there any evidence that he suffered any consequences for his actions? >It >> seems clear that there was no *authority-imposed* punishment, or at least >we >> never hear about it. I think we simply weren't told what punishment he got. I guess it was at least detention and losing quite a few house points, but mentioning it under the circumstances wouldn't have fit into the dialogue, don't you think so? Just a thought. I really can't imagine Harry asking under the circumstances (discovering his godfather didn't kill his parents, being told that Ron's pet rat was actually a wizard in disguise and presumably the one who betrayed them), 'Didn't you get punished for that prank?' All the more because Harry doesn't really care about Snape. So, the fact that JKR didn't tell us about any authority-imposed punishment is no proof that there wasn't one. But whatever punishment Sirius might have gotten, unless he was expelled, you can be sure that it wouldn't have been enough for Snape. Just IMHO, of course. Sherry: > That would make it easy for Snape to hold a grudge, >since >> as I have stated, punishment is much more visible to outsiders than >> consequence, and Snape may have failed to see how Sirius paid. Does >anyone >> know of any such consequence of the Prank? Irene replied: >But of course! Huge, karmic consequences - when he was framed, everyone, >including Dumbledore and his friend Lupin believed it without a trial. If it >was not for the prank, >maybe there would have been someone who said - "Hang on, Sirius the >murderer? What an absurd idea, let's at least hear his explanations". Not necessarily. Think of what we have been told about the time of Voldemort's first reign. Everyone distrusted everyone. They all knew there must be a traitor in their midst, but since everybody believed Peter to be too stupid and weak to be the one, Sirius suspected Lupin and vice versa. And nobody knew Sirius and Peter switched Secret-Keepers. I'm pretty sure James and Lily told Dumbledore Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, and that's why he testified before the Ministry. *All the evidence* spoke against Sirius, and the whole WW was in an uproar at the time. The Potters seem to have been important people, we still don't know why, but I have no doubt about it. Sirius seemed to have been caught in the act, and Crouch might have wanted to set an example after Voldemort's disappearance to restore law and order in the WW. We know he wasn't the most sensitive person since he also gave permission to the Aurors to use the Unforgivable curses. He strikes me as someone who in certain situations might shoot first and ask questions later if he believes his cause justified. From what I understood of the situation, the WW might still have been under a state of emergency, and in such a situation people are more prone to lose their scruples. To sum it up, I don't think the fact that no one wanted to hear Sirius out is a proof that everyone distrusted him. Remember what Madam Rosmerta said about him in the Three Broomsticks, that he was the last one she would have ever thought to go over to the dark side. Monika From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 14:57:27 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:57:27 -0000 Subject: Evil Evil Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48322 Steve:"I think Fudge is doing everything you suggest, but I don't think it is a concious calculated plot. I think he is running on fear, instinct, and a lot of rationalized thought. So while he did indeed bring the Dementor as was way of stopping Crouch from speading his story, I think in his mind, he rationalized it with other reasons. Sadly, the only person he is fooling is himself." If he brought the dementor to silence Crouch, that means he had to know that Crouch Jr. was in fact alive. Someone may have told Crouch when he was aked to come up to Moody's office, but he would have had to forumlate the idea of eliminating Barty Jr. in that moment and then get a Dementor to do it. He couldn't depend on being able to eliminate Crouch that way; if Dumbledore had been in the Moody's office when he arrived, the Kiss never would have happened. The other answer is that he knew about Crouch in advance, which means he is in active league with Voldemort. I doubt that. Like you, I think Fudge is a modern-day Neville Chamberlain (Cardinal Law?) whose main interest is self-protection. That's what big, entrenched bodies do - protect themselves, cover up, "keep the lid on." Some places they call it "Jaws" syndrome, after the way the town fathers [in the movie] covered up the fact beachgoing tourists were becoming a shark's lunch. Does this mean Fudge is evil? Yeah, he is. Cowardice is evil. Steve:"I think his actions throughout are self-serving and he is intent on preserving his own comfortable world no matter how much he must delude himself in order to make that happen." Right on, brother. From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 16:30:24 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:30:24 -0000 Subject: Fudge is not evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48323 Jim Ferer wrote: > > Does this mean Fudge is evil? Yeah, he is. Cowardice is evil. Cowardice is not evil. If it is, then Ron is evil too for being a coward around spiders. Cowardice gets a bad rap because is it is not the stuff heroes are made of generally. It does not help along to cause of good in battling evil. It just puts its fingers in its ears and sings to itself till it is all over and then enjoys the rewards of the others labor. Yes that is not a good thing, but it does not make the person innately evil. It just deems them "not the hero". I would say the major problem in Fudge is not the coward but the stubborn blindness. Unfortunately, that often runs hand in hand with cowardness, but does this make him evil? I think it just makes him pathetic. Melody From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 14 16:54:55 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:54:55 -0000 Subject: A motive for Sirius (finally!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48324 I believe I have come up with a motive for The Prank that doesn't make Sirius look like a psycho but doesn't require Snape to have done anything worse (in those days) than Sirius says he did. Lupin says that the Animagi made his transformations bearable. What if he means that literally? What if he couldn't bear the thought of transforming without them? The Animagi couldn't have continued to visit the Willow once Snape knew about it. What if the prospect of losing their company drove Lupin to despair? If Lupin was on the verge of suicide (as troubled teens all too often are), could Sirius have seen The Prank as the only way to save his friend? It might have seemed to Sirius that they had nothing to lose. Even if Snape died and Lupin was held responsible, at least Snape would have been paid back, and what could anyone do to Lupin that was worse than what he planned to do to himself? Sirius could have thought that Lupin might have been let off, and his secret concealed, even if Snape had died or been injured. It seems from the Trio's defense of Buckbeak that unlike a human, a Beast is not held responsible if it attacks when provoked. And entering a werewolf's enclosure on the night of a full moon would probably count as provocation. Aragog doesn't seem to be worried that his children will be held responsible for eating Ron and Harry because they wandered "so willingly into our midst." Of course, as we've seen, the Ministry doesn't always honor this rule, but perhaps Sirius had more faith in wizard justice back then. I think that his attempt at murder did haunt Sirius in Azkaban, and he made up a defense for it, something like Gollum in LOTR, (not that I think Sirius was that bad). Snape was spying, Lupin wouldn't have wanted to die if Snape hadn't been spying on him, Sirius *had* to do something to save his friend, it would have served Snape right if he *had* died, and so forth. Sirius' vehement sneer, "It served him right," followed by the rather lame explanations as to why, could actually signal a change in Sirius' thinking. At that moment, Sirius realizes that the justifications which seemed convincing to him in Azkaban might be faulty from his new, parental perspective. The alternative explanation, simple teenage thoughtlessness, doesn't seem quite convincing to me as a reason for the adult Sirius to cling to the belief that Snape had it coming. Pippin fancying a red robe From Audra1976 at aol.com Sat Dec 14 17:22:46 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:22:46 EST Subject: A motive for Sirius - clarification Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48325 In a message dated 14/12/2002 11:56:09 Eastern Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: > The Animagi couldn't have continued to visit the Willow once Snape knew > about it. > What if the prospect of losing their company drove Lupin to > despair? > If Lupin was on the verge of suicide (as troubled teens all too > often are), could Sirius have seen The Prank as the only way to > save his friend? Me: I don't know if I understand this correctly. Sirius says he deliberately let the information slip to Snape about the Willow. Do you mean you think Snape found out about Lupin's secret before that, and was going to expose him, and that's what made Lupin suicidal? So *then* Sirius let it slip how to get into the Willow, hoping Snape would follow him and be killed so that Lupin's secret would be safe? Audra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 17:24:12 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:24:12 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Redemption (was: Evil and Stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48326 I wrote: >>To dehumanized Voldemort would make killing him easier for all, but >>defeat the point of the lessons learned so far in the series. CK wrote: >Oh, I don't agree. I think that making him not-human makes the >morality of killing him more questionable. Because if he IS human, >then the choice is simple: Harry may not kill him. Period. As a >'human being,' yeah, he has the choice. But as the archetypal >virtuous hero, he may not kill another human being. I don't know if 'making Voldemort human means that Harry cannot kill him' is portrayed in the books. Yes, it is shown that Harry and Dumbledore have a lingering respect for life, and thank goodness for that. They realize that people are human and thus can be redeemed. Harry is still a little fuzzy on that concept, but it is growing in him to see. So I don't think Harry with ever see Voldemort as non-human. Harry *knows* Voldemort still has that human soul no matter what his shell is. Harry met Tom Riddle. Harry knows that Voldemort is human. Harry also knows that Voldemort has a mother and father. Harry has been shown over and over that this guy is a human being, but this guy messed up...big time. Does this mean Harry cannot kill him now? Is this education providing Harry with grounds for believing in a Voldemort that could turn from his evil ways? I am not sure. I would say, Harry knows all this to be true but feels Voldemort must pay for his crimes. Whether by death or by kiss, Harry believes Voldemort does deserve the punishment. Now if it came down to it and it was Harry or Voldemort...well, in fact, it has come down to it in the graveyard, and Harry did not aim to kill. I don't think Harry thought he had it in him to perform such strong magic. But did Harry not kill snake-face that night because he thought he was non-human? No, he did not kill Voldemort that night because he knew the punishment to an unforgivable curse. Even in the face of evil, Harry did not kill. So really, non-human or human, Harry will still not aim his wand...well for right now. ;) Oh, another point: If Voldemort is being portrayed as something no longer human, then he is becoming evil personified. If that is the case, then the hero is not defeating an evil person but evil itself. I find this a very dangerous situation to portray with any morality involved. Frankly if Voldemort is killed because he is seen as evil personified and not a human being, then the whole reason they killed him is convoluted. The good guys, in their perception, thought they were killing evil and thus it will go away for good. That is a *extremely* wrong assessment and only breeds more evil from the apathy in result. However, if they kill an evil human, then they are protecting themselves from that person. The knowledge that evil still exists and is still an option is there. CK wrote: >However, if Voldemort isn't human, it removes that assurance. Maybe >he's past redemption. Maybe there is no longer anything worth saving. I cannot believe *anyone* is beyond redemption. That is the whole point of the road to Damascus in The Bible. A human being is and always will have a human soul that can always be saved, and I don't just believe this because it is my faith but because it is alluded to in the text. Crouch Sr., even though it has been debated recently as to whether it is a proper redemption, was at the end of life when he repented. He saw the error of his ways and went to try and fix them. That is why Voldemort wanted him dead. He was a threat like he never was before, so I say that Crouch Sr. was on the road to recovery. We also have the ever-famous Snape redemption. Once a DE but now a freedom fighter. I don't think these are isolated incidences. They are there to say people *can* change. *People* can. Even when they make horrible decisions and turn down extremely dark roads, the fact that they can change is important. Now Harry is shown Voldemort is in fact human, so I do believe Harry won't forget that. Now, I don't believe Harry would not shoot to kill because he believes Voldemort can still change his ways. That would be foolish, but I do believe Harry and Dumbledore would accept a Redeemed!Voldemort instead of a Dead!Voldemort. They would rejoice in his turning from his evil and embracing the good. Though Voldemort still might have to pay for his crimes, he would not be killed then because the WW does not have the death penalty. He might not even be kissed. I do not find that we are to believe that Voldemort is past the point of no return. He can be redeemed still. We might be past the literary development of a character to be changed from evil to good, but we might not. After all, if JKR keeps writing these books as long as she has, then we might have enough pages to make Voldemort's redemption a possibility. So do I believe he *will* turn from his evil ways? Ha - what fun is that? I want evil destroyed. I want dancing in the streets and good people to not be afraid. I want evil to be driven far from the earth and the time of singing to commence. I want Harry to live a life away from the constant threat of being abducted and killed. I want this to be a fairytale with good defeating evil in triumph and valour. But redemption of Voldemort does all that too. It is a major blow to the forces of evil if their poster child is not longer wears blood stain robes. His robes are washed white. There could be a bigger lesson in all this. Not that by killing a person, evil can go away, but that by believing in mankind's innate goodness, we can drive evil away *without* resorting to their own devices. Killing is only shown as good in defense. Not in justice. Man, I have rattled on for too long. Sorry about that. I still don't know is Voldemort can or would be redeemed in the text given that we have *no* foreshadowing or hint that he could. He has to have a catalyst to do it, and we see no possible venue right know unless Jesus "magically" appears to him on a road out of Albania. Melody From sammer at webspan.net Sat Dec 14 17:23:56 2002 From: sammer at webspan.net (Joanne Sammer) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:23:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48327 Hi folks, This is my first post. This looks like an interesting group. Responding to some of Melody's thoughts... > >Voldemort and Barty Jr.: idolize dead mother as their savior Actually, Crouch Jr.'s mother _was_ his savior. She took his place in prison and died there so that Jr. could go "free." > >So with Harry, I was also trying to imply, I think, that he too is >playing awful close to this line. He *does* play Quidditch in a >single-minded dedicated way. He does this so much that he breaks his >arm and works hard to not let *anything* affect his game. While his >motives are still pure, he is being taught that singular pursuit is >alright, but he is not being taught when he would cross that line. >Breaking his arm was not too far. Spending his free waking hours >alone with boggarts and a werewolf was not too far. Even pushing and >shoving is not too far. Has Harry been taught when "seeking" becomes >obsession? Frankly, single-minded pursuit is a hop, jump, and a step >right next to obsession. And obsession leads to the grey morality >between good and evil and thus was Crouch Sr's downfall. He did not >choose to be evil like Voldemort. He was boiled up to it. I don't see any danger of Quidditch becoming an obsession. Remember that when Harry flew for the first time, it was a revelation to him. Finally, he was good at something. He felt free. Quidditch has been a way for Harry to be notable for something other than his scar. It also seems like a lot of fun. As for the boggarts and werewolf (Harry didn't know Lupin was a werewolf at this point), Harry knew he had a major problem with dementors (not just when playing Quidditch) and needed to do something to protect himself. The scenes with Lupin remind me of a father teaching a son to defend himself against a bully. Given Harry's defenseless first years with Dudley, I think the patronus lessons are symbolic. They may represent the first time Harry has taken proactive steps to defend himself rather than just running away (Dudley) or reacting to events (through the trapdoor in PS/SS and against the basilisk and Riddle in the COS). Given the way PoA ended, it is a good thing he did take those steps. >Now with the "seeking", it has been shown that Harry has been >instructed in the encouraged forms of seeking. In task two, he was >awarded more points for not being of a one track mind. That alone >would tell him a lot, but did he learn that though? Harry did say >that he was being stupid for his actions. He was embarrassed because >of them. Even though he got more points, we left that task wondering >if Harry had it to do over again, would he have just cut Ron out and >gone back to the surface? He would of arrived first and still had the >most points. Did Harry learn that it *was* better, more noble, for >him to do what he did? Seems to me, he just learned that sometimes >you get lucky with judges. I think Harry would have done the same thing again. He really did show "moral fiber" as the judges said and he did it without thinking. That shows more about Harry than anything else. > >I am scared of single-minded seeking because it is *so* close to >obsession, and Harry has not been taught to avoid that. Obsession is >such an ugly affair. He has seen nice obsession with Oliver Wood. >Wait - he has seen the ugly obsession. Sirius and Crouch Sr. He has >seen what happens to one if they *have* become truly obsessive. But >does Harry know what to do to avoid going that far? Does he know how >to not let himself boil up to that point? I don't think his interest in Quidditch is single minded. He reads about the Cannons and broomsticks, like Muggle boys do football and other sports. I've always viewed Quidditch as a nice relief for Harry. Again, he becomes Harry Potter, the Seeker, instead of Harry Potter, the boy who lived. In GoF, he wishes he had Quidditch to take his mind off the tournament tasks. Quidditch is a diversion. > > >So - where am I in figuring out the creed? What does JKR mean by the >words "seek", "weak", and "power"? > >I say: >seek- single minded pursuits >weak- those that do not engage in said seeking >power- achieved goal I agree that Harry is a seeker. But does it have to be power? I think Harry is seeking lot of things--a family, some peace of mind about Voldemort, a passing grade in Potions, knowledge of his parents and family. These are all worthy goals. Best, Joanne From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 14 18:04:17 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:04:17 -0000 Subject: A motive for Sirius - clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48328 I wrote: > > The Animagi couldn't have continued to visit the Willow once Snape knew about it. > > What if the prospect of losing their company drove Lupin to despair? If Lupin was on the verge of suicide (as troubled teens all too often are), could Sirius have seen The Prank as the only way to save his friend? > > Audra: > > I don't know if I understand this correctly. Sirius says he deliberately let > the information slip to Snape about the Willow. Do you mean you think Snape found out about Lupin's secret before that, and was going to expose him, and that's what made Lupin suicidal? So *then* Sirius let it slip how to get into the Willow, hoping Snape would follow him and be killed so that Lupin's > secret would be safe? > Lupin says, "...anyway, Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey as she led me toward the Whomping Willow to transform." POA 18. So if Snape didn't actually see Lupin enter the Willow, he did see enough to make him think that Lupin and the Willow were connected. He probably saw the branches freeze as Lupin entered. And somehow the Marauders discovered that. It would be only a matter of time before Snape saw the Animagi going out to the tree. The I-Cloak wouldn't have kept Snape from seeing the branches freeze as they were going in or out. There'd be a full moon. He'd know something was up. And Snape is very good at putting things together. With Snape watching the willow, it would be too dangerous for the other Marauders to join him for his transformations and *that* made Lupin suicidal. So *then* Sirius deliberately let Snape know how to enter the willow, hoping that Snape would either get killed or get caught snooping and be warned off. Pippin From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 18:44:54 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:44:54 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Redemption (was: Evil and Stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48329 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " < Malady579 at h...> wrote: > I wrote: > >>To dehumanized Voldemort would make killing him easier for all, but > >>defeat the point of the lessons learned so far in the series. > > CK wrote: > >Oh, I don't agree. I think that making him not-human makes the > >morality of killing him more questionable. Because if he IS human, > >then the choice is simple: Harry may not kill him. Period. As a > >'human being,' yeah, he has the choice. But as the archetypal > >virtuous hero, he may not kill another human being. > > > I don't know if 'making Voldemort human means that Harry cannot kill > him' is portrayed in the books. Yes, it is shown that Harry and > Dumbledore have a lingering respect for life, and thank goodness for > that. They realize that people are human and thus can be redeemed. > Harry is still a little fuzzy on that concept, but it is growing in > him to see. So I don't think Harry with ever see Voldemort as > non-human. Okay, if Voldemort changes himself into ... oh, let's say a dragon .... and there is no way to give him human form again, do you think Harry will still see him as human? That's pretty dangerous, given that dragons can do some things that humans - even wizards - can't. I think we're getting to a difference in semantics, here. I think we agree that no matter what happens, Harry will see something of value in Voldemort. You say that he will see him as human; I say he will see him as someone/something that USED to be human. > Harry *knows* Voldemort still has that human soul no > matter what his shell is. Harry met Tom Riddle. Harry knows that > Voldemort is human. Harry also knows that Voldemort has a mother and > father. Harry has been shown over and over that this guy is a human > being, but this guy messed up...big time. Does this mean Harry cannot > kill him now? Is this education providing Harry with grounds for > believing in a Voldemort that could turn from his evil ways? I'm talking from the perspective of literary criticism. Harry fits the pattern of the virtuous hero - someone who doesn't always make the right choices, but tries to do what will help the most people. And one of the traits of the virtuous hero - one of the /primary/ traits - is mercy. We see this in Harry when he spares Pettigrew, and a similar case is when he goes back for whatsername under the water during the TriWizard Tournament. The only way I can see Harry getting rid of Voldemort if Voldemort is not properly dehumanized is finding some way to banish him. Kind of like the Phantom Zone in the Superman movies. > > I am not sure. I would say, Harry knows all this to be true but feels > Voldemort must pay for his crimes. Whether by death or by kiss, Harry > believes Voldemort does deserve the punishment. Now if it came down > to it and it was Harry or Voldemort...well, in fact, it has come down > to it in the graveyard, and Harry did not aim to kill. I don't think > Harry thought he had it in him to perform such strong magic. But did > Harry not kill snake-face that night because he thought he was > non-human? No, he did not kill Voldemort that night because he knew > the punishment to an unforgivable curse. Even in the face of evil, > Harry did not kill. So really, non-human or human, Harry will still > not aim his wand...well for right now. ;) *grin* Like I said before. Semantics. ;) > > Oh, another point: > If Voldemort is being portrayed as something no longer human, then he > is becoming evil personified. What?! How do you get this? I mean, I could say that "if Voldemort is being portrayed as something no longer human, then gravity will stop working," but if I don't prove a connection between the "if" and the "then" it's an empty statement. > If that is the case, then the hero is > not defeating an evil person but evil itself. Same thing, although this is a bit more reasonable. If a hero defeats evil personified, he is defeating a /representation/ of evil itself. I mean, obviously you can't defeat evil because it's not contained like that. There will always be Bad People and Bad Things That Happen. > I find this a very > dangerous situation to portray with any morality involved. Frankly if > Voldemort is killed because he is seen as evil personified and not a > human being, then the whole reason they killed him is convoluted. The > good guys, in their perception, thought they were killing evil and > thus it will go away for good. Again - where are you getting this? Deductions from canon? Literary comparison/criticism? > > CK wrote: > >However, if Voldemort isn't human, it removes that assurance. Maybe > >he's past redemption. Maybe there is no longer anything worth saving. > > I cannot believe *anyone* is beyond redemption. That is the whole > point of the road to Damascus in The Bible. A human being is and > always will have a human soul that can always be saved, and I don't > just believe this because it is my faith but because it is alluded to > in the text. Right. I would agree that a human being can be redeemed - but I think that's why Rowling is making Voldemort non-human, because it removes that assurance. If he's not human anymore, can he be redeemed? > > Crouch Sr., even though it has been debated recently as to whether it > is a proper redemption, was at the end of life when he repented. He > saw the error of his ways and went to try and fix them. That is why > Voldemort wanted him dead. He was a threat like he never was before, > so I say that Crouch Sr. was on the road to recovery. We also have > the ever-famous Snape redemption. Once a DE but now a freedom fighter. Right again. A human can be redeemed, we know this, we have examples. > > I don't think these are isolated incidences. They are there to say > people *can* change. *People* can. Even when they make horrible > decisions and turn down extremely dark roads, the fact that they can > change is important. Now Harry is shown Voldemort is in fact human, > so I do believe Harry won't forget that. > > Now, I don't believe Harry would not shoot to kill because he believes > Voldemort can still change his ways. That would be foolish, but I do > believe Harry and Dumbledore would accept a Redeemed!Voldemort instead > of a Dead!Voldemort. They would rejoice in his turning from his evil > and embracing the good. Though Voldemort still might have to pay for > his crimes, he would not be killed then because the WW does not have > the death penalty. He might not even be kissed. A good thing, because GIRLS HAVE COOTIES! *giggle* I'm sorry, I haven't had enough sleep. ;) > > I do not find that we are to believe that Voldemort is past the point > of no return. He can be redeemed still. We might be past the > literary development of a character to be changed from evil to good, > but we might not. After all, if JKR keeps writing these books as long > as she has, then we might have enough pages to make Voldemort's > redemption a possibility. At this point, however, we are seeing movement in the opposite direction - Voldemort's choices and actions have led more and more to him losing physical aspects of humanity. Nor does he appear to have any desire whatsoever to turn from his eeeeevil ways. > > So do I believe he *will* turn from his evil ways? Ha - what fun is > that? I want evil destroyed. I want dancing in the streets and good > people to not be afraid. I want evil to be driven far from the earth > and the time of singing to commence. I want Harry to live a life away > from the constant threat of being abducted and killed. I want this to > be a fairytale with good defeating evil in triumph and valour. > > But redemption of Voldemort does all that too. It is a major blow to > the forces of evil if their poster child is not longer wears blood > stain robes. His robes are washed white. There could be a bigger > lesson in all this. Not that by killing a person, evil can go away, > but that by believing in mankind's innate goodness, we can drive evil > away *without* resorting to their own devices. Killing is only shown > as good in defense. Not in justice. Well... because killing /isn't/ justice. It's retribution. True justice - a fair and equitable settling of wrongs - involves restitution, but how do you make restitution for murder, for example? You can't. > > Man, I have rattled on for too long. Sorry about that. I still don't > know is Voldemort can or would be redeemed in the text given that we > have *no* foreshadowing or hint that he could. He has to have a > catalyst to do it, and we see no possible venue right know unless > Jesus "magically" appears to him on a road out of Albania. *grin* Somehow I /don't/ see that happening... CK From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 19:43:52 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:43:52 -0000 Subject: The Nature of Cowardice (was Fudge is not evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48330 Melody, diagreeing that Fudge is evil in any way:"Cowardice is not evil. If it is, then Ron is evil too for being a coward around spiders." Not at all. Ron is terrified of spiders, but he went, stuck with his friend, and did what he had to do in spite of his fear. That makes him courageous, the opposite of fear. Melody:"Cowardice gets a bad rap because is it is not the stuff heroes are made of generally. It does not help along to cause of good in battling evil." It's worse than merely not helping. If Fudge stepped forward and took action quickly, Evil might be stopped or lessened. By a lack of moral courage, Fudge does evil's work better than some of the Death Eaters do. Melody:"Yes that [cowardice] is not a good thing, but it does not make the person innately evil. It just deems them "not the hero." Agreed, not innately evil, but Fudge is something much worse than 'not the hero.' From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 18:39:22 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:39:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Evil, and Stuff (was Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021214183922.38464.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48331 Angela wrote: > EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Voldemort does love his mother. TANYA: <> Well, I did make my statement about LV loving his mother, semi-in-jest. After all, it is a bit funny to imagine the evil lord as a mamma's boy. Good point about DD's comment about LV and love, with regard to Lily and Harry, esp. Though I have a hard time believing the, "LV's mom had to have a relationship with Tom Sr. out of desperation to procreate. Angela --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 19:55:53 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:55:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another thought WAS [Re: Bertha Jorkins & Neville (comparison)) In-Reply-To: <002001c2a33d$282f0d60$5dedaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <20021214195553.37771.qmail@web14608.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48332 BoBaFeTT wrote: Still going under the assumption that Neville is under a memory charm. Perhaps the people in the hospital aren't his parents? Perhaps they were chosen by his grandmother so he wouldn't have to find out his father was Peter Pettigrew?>> ME IF PP was Neville's dad, why would his grandmother think it better to pretend that two insane people were his parents? Remember, for 12 years Peter was regarded as a true HERO. There would be no shame in being Peter's son. Plus, there really isn't ANY even indirect evidence for Peter being related to Neville. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaityf at jorsm.com Sat Dec 14 21:11:22 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:11:22 -0600 Subject: What does it mean to be human? (was Voldie's Redemption) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021214143733.0322b608@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48333 Melody wrote: >Voldemort is rotten to the core, I can't help but remember he *is* >human. Well, a part of him I'm sure is somewhere in there. While I >may kid around with Voldie becoming redeemed at the end, I do believe >it is a viable option because he is still human. CK wrote: > >I'm not sure. First the wisp-o-mort, then the back of someone else's > >head and unicorn's blood, then the ugly baby, then Flatface... I > >think Rowling has done a pretty good job of dehumanizing Voldemort. > >I'm not saying that it's completely impossible to redeem him. In > >theory, it's still a possibility. I just wouldn't put too many eggs > >in that basket. Interesting exchange. And it got me wondering about another possible philosophical question raised by the series: what does it mean to be human? From book one to book 4, we have references to Voldemort's state. In PS/SS, Hagrid says he doesn't believe that Voldemort died because there wasn't enough human left in him to die. And CK does a good job of describing Voldemort's rather non-human conditions. However, Voldemort is still trying for immortality and by the end of GoF has succeeded in getting his body back. Is he now human? (Yes, I know the debate about the gleam in DD's eyes.) He had a body before, but Hagrid still didn't think he was fully human. Can a person be so horribly evil and still be "human"? Perhaps this is yet another decision Harry will have to make and the option he chooses will determine what happens to Voldemort. I'm thinking that Harry will go for the option that no matter what Voldemort is human -- unless there is something in the next 3 books that clearly point to the contrary. Will Voldemort be redeemed? That I don't know, but I sincerely hope we don't have a Stars Wars-like end with Voldemort smiling happily in death and standing in some kind of vision next to James and Lily. In any case, whether LV is redeemed or not, I still think the question for Harry might be how *he* sees Voldemort. Melody wrote: > > >>To dehumanized Voldemort would make killing him easier for all, but > > >>defeat the point of the lessons learned so far in the series. > > > > CK wrote: > > >Oh, I don't agree. I think that making him not-human makes the > > >morality of killing him more questionable. Because if he IS human, > > >then the choice is simple: Harry may not kill him. Period. As a > > >'human being,' yeah, he has the choice. But as the archetypal > > >virtuous hero, he may not kill another human being. CK also said: >I think we're getting to a difference in semantics, here. I think we >agree that no matter what happens, Harry will see something of value >in Voldemort. You say that he will see him as human; I say he will see >him as someone/something that USED to be human. Melody goes on: > > Harry *knows* Voldemort still has that human soul no > > matter what his shell is. Harry met Tom Riddle. Harry knows that > > Voldemort is human. Harry also knows that Voldemort has a mother and > > father. Harry has been shown over and over that this guy is a human > > being, but this guy messed up...big time. Does this mean Harry cannot > > kill him now? Is this education providing Harry with grounds for > > believing in a Voldemort that could turn from his evil ways? I'm not sure Harry's going to see anything of value in Voldemort. Perhaps he will recognize that the boy who became Lord Voldemort no longer exists and the reason he no longer exists is that he *chose* to give up those things that made him human to begin with. I think this would fit in nicely with the theme of choice in the series. And it would make us all think about just what it means to be human. What choice will Harry make? Will he have the option of killing Voldemort in the end? Will he choose that option or will he resist, believing that by choosing to kill Voldemort, he will be giving up part of what makes him human? Carol From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Dec 14 21:35:10 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:35:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Nature of Cowardice (was Fudge is not evil) Message-ID: <151.18e6981f.2b2cfe0e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48334 In a message dated 14/12/2002 19:44:27 GMT Standard Time, jferer at yahoo.com writes: > Melody, diagreeing that Fudge is evil in any way:"Cowardice is not > evil. If it is, then Ron is evil too for being a coward around spiders." > > Not at all. Ron is terrified of spiders, but he went, stuck with his > friend, and did what he had to do in spite of his fear. That makes > him courageous, the opposite of fear. > > >Melody:"Yes that [cowardice] is not a good thing, but it does not make >the person innately evil. It just deems them "not the hero." Heroism is a curious thing, isn't it, because (and I am in no way wanting to discredit those who perform heroic acts) often acts of heroism are instinctive, not thought out, not necessarily *brave*. People under fire often do amazing things under the influence of adrenalin, endorphins and the effect of being put in a position where they feel they have little option but to follow a particular course of action. Now, that isn't the same as saying that there is no difference between the person who will, for example put him/herself at risk to rescue a colleague and the person who decides to save his/her own skin, but simply to acknowledge that many *heroes* don't regard themselves as heroic, but merely to have followed the only course of action they thought was available to them at the time. But this perhaps speaks more of their underlying moral principles (or of their emotional attachments - which parent in this group, however timid, doesn't *know * that they would put themselves between their child and anyone seeking to harm them?) than of their courage per se. Yes, I agree that *courage* involves fighting one's fear and in this way, Ron *is* courageous. It is also, as a side note, the reason I have never been able to stand Siegfried, the great Wagnerian hero who literally does not know what fear is. What Brunnhilde ever saw in him, I'll never know! As far as I am concerned, if you cannot fear, then you cannot be heroic; there's a difference between courage and stupidity. As for Fudge... well, my views are well known if not well understood. As a *self-interested* coward who will not recognise the threat posed by Voldemort, I view him, if nothing else, as the embodiment of the institutionalised evil of a government which will not face up to the truth and act. As Burke said (and as has been quoted here before), "It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph." ~Eloise ~~~~~~~~~~~ You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every time we look at it we see a different hue. (Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 23:56:17 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:56:17 -0000 Subject: L. Malfoy & Longbottoms: was(Re: Bertha Jorkins & Neville (comparison)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr " wrote: Hey, cool! I've always wanted to suggest an acronym! M.A.L.E.V.O.L.E.N.C.E. (should you choose to accept the acronym), > posits that Lucius Malfoy has been using donations to gain influence > at the hospital, in order to ensure that the Longbottoms remain in the > care of seemingly caring (but in fact, Evil) wizards who are keeping > them in an artificially prolonged state of insanity. > > Howzat? > > Anne > who really needs to think up a better signature... I like it. :) I haven't decided whether to board the vessel or not, yet, but like I said, it's a tantalizing theory. And I doubt that JKR would have mentioned Lucius's donation for *no* reason, so it must be something... Strix From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 23:59:47 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:59:47 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48336 Hi JoAnne. Welcome to the group. Nice name. JoAnne wrote: > I don't see any danger of Quidditch becoming an obsession. Remember > that when Harry flew for the first time, it was a revelation to him. > Finally, he was good at something. He felt free. Quidditch has been > a way for Harry to be notable for something other than his scar. It > also seems like a lot of fun. Quidditch is a wonderful distraction for Harry. I am very glad he has it and the chance to earn his own reputation. I was not trying to say "Quidditch" itself would become an obsession, but rather, that the clarity of mind of a single-minded pursuit of an object could. His taught style of "seeking" could become an obsession. The integrated mind set of how to search for a snitch would creep in his subconscious. The needs to clear the path to free the mind to search could also follow. Those are dangerous gifts and traits to have in wrong hands. While I do think Harry is being brought up to see morals clearly, I do find these tactics are shown in the book to not be the best way to achieve your goals. JoAnne wrote: > Harry knew he had a major problem with > dementors (not just when playing Quidditch) and needed to do > something to protect himself. Before, I pointed out that Harry knew he had this problem ever since the train. He even knew the dementors were at the school and would be a continual possible threat to him, but Harry did not seek help against them until they threatened his Quidditch game. He then sought after Lupin to try and find a way to clear up this problem because of that motivation. That motivation is very key to me. Harry, when he has a single-minded adventure like he does *during* the game, will try everything he can do to avert *anything* that could possible take his mind off of catching that snitch. That is what I find dangerous if it is allowed to boil and pervert. JoAnne wrote about Task Two: > I think Harry would have done the same thing again. He really did > show "moral fiber" as the judges said and he did it without > thinking. That shows more about Harry than anything else. But that "moral fiber" was not what Harry learned in task two. He learned that he took things too seriously. Had Harry known that the other would not of been hurt and then could do the task over again, then he too would of high-tailed it back to the finish line. One must remember Krum and Cedric knew this as well. They knew not to take the egg song that seriously. They knew the *point* was to finish. Not to show moral fiber. Besides, Harry shows he has moral fiber constantly. So much so it is almost annoying. JoAnne wrote: > I don't think his interest in Quidditch is single minded. He reads > about the Cannons and broomsticks, like Muggle boys do football and > other sports. I've always viewed Quidditch as a nice relief for > Harry. I did not mean to say his "interest" in Quidditch could become obsessive. What is borderline obsessive is the *way* Harry has to play the game. When Harry is on the field and in the game, he *is* supposed to have a one-track mind. Find the snitch before the other seeker does. He kind of has to look out for bludgers, but he is not supposed to. That is the beaters job. What Harry has to do is bend his mind on that small golden snitch. That is all. That is also very close cousin to obsession. I wrote: >>So - where am I in figuring out the creed? What does JKR mean by >>the words "seek", "weak", and "power"? JoAnne wrote: >I agree that Harry is a seeker. But does it have to be power? I think >Harry is seeking lot of things--a family, some peace of mind about >Voldemort, a passing grade in Potions, knowledge of his parents and >family. These are all worthy goals. You might want to go back and read my original post as to why I went back to QuirrelMort's creed in PS/SS. I was trying to figure out the degree of "seeking" implied by that creed. I do agree Harry seeks many things in life as we all do. I just was worried about the way he is being taught to seek. Melody From the.harrisfamily at virgin.net Sun Dec 15 00:11:00 2002 From: the.harrisfamily at virgin.net (eillim022861 ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:11:00 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48337 This is my first posting, hope it is ok? Ezzie Mora wrote >I think the appeal to most women is Snape's unique >range of character (intelligent, dark, brooding, >ambitious, mysterious, tortured) that is appealing. >If you're a Snape fan, ask yourself when the >inclinations (obsession?) began. I think that by the end of book three I was hooked. I agree with Ezzie Mora that Snape's range of character is appealing. He is a fine example of a Bryonic hero, full of angst, tortured, definately a misogynist, with a mysterious past. He is comparable with other heros (or anti-heros?) such as Rochester and Heathcliffe. Throw in a touch of the gothic with the potions, dungeons and his dark cloaks and hair and you have a memorable character. I also think that part of the appeal is that there are many blanks that we can choose to fill in for ourselves. Indeed there is the possibility that he may not be a reformed character. I suppose that the bad boy will always have his appeal, and is undoubtedly a challenge for any woman. Finally, I wondered if the fact that Krum's physical appearance to Snape is of any particular significance. ('sallow skin', 'hooked nose'). I did trawl through the messages but couldn't find much on this. I do hope Snape finds love though, or some salvation. a devoted Snape fan eillim From Resqgal911 at msn.com Sat Dec 14 23:57:43 2002 From: Resqgal911 at msn.com (Tammy Bianchi) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:57:43 -0500 Subject: The Unforgivable Curses References: <1039853802.1747.39073.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48338 This has been bothering me for a while. Why does Crouch!Moody make sure that Harry learns to fight the imperio curse? I would have expected someone that was helping V to get Harry to try to send him as unprepared as possible. My next question is why focus so much on teaching all the students how to break the imperio curse when he is just supposed to be showing the curses to them. I believe the answer to this is that Crouch Jr. didn't want anyone to suffer as he did all these years his father kept him in hiding. But, this would give Crouch Jr. a little to much credit. After all he did keep Real!Moody under imperio all this time. Tammy From gandharvika at hotmail.com Sun Dec 15 01:53:18 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:53:18 +0000 Subject: (FILK) The Explanation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48339 The Explanation (A FILK to the tune of _The Confrontation_ from the musical _Les Miserables_) Dedicated to Melody who gave me the suggestion...and to Audra, who also thinks that Snape makes a great Javert If you are unfamiliar with this particular song, then it will be very difficult to appreciate it fully unless you listen to this link or have the Les Miz CD handy to sing along with. Here it is on Real Audio (you have to temporarily download the file): http://www.thai-d.com/music/lesmiz/songs.html Here is a Midi (thanks CMC): http://www.broadwaymidi.com/cgi-bin/schlabo/dl.pl?LM-Confrontation Although most of it doesn't rhyme...take my word, it does work. ******************************************************** Scene: The Shrieking Shack. Snape has just removed the invisibility cloak and has his wand out, pointing it at Sirius Black. Snape (with a mad look in his eye and a note of triumph in his voice): And now, at last I finally see your plan Lupin and Black Two more for Azkaban Lupin: Before you say another word, Severus Before you go and take him to the castle Listen to me, you are making a mistake You haven't heard everything we've just said Sirius Black is not here to kill Harry For mercy's sake, Severus hear us out Let me explain, give us a chance Let me explain Snape: I suspected you Knew you'd be helping your old friend Helping him into the castle And now...here's the proof Lupin (in counterpoint) Listen to me, Snape you fool Is this old school-boy grudge worth it? Sirius Black is innocent Black: If I get my hands on you The joke is on you again As long as this boy brings the rat I'm telling you the rat, look at the rat Believe me, Severus Snape! Hermione: Professor, listen to them Please hear what they have to say If there is a mistake... Professor please understand Harry: You are so pathetic, Snape 'Cause they made a fool of you... I will do what I must do! _________________________________________________________ Snape (in counterpoint): (to Lupin) Interesting it will be How Dumbledore takes all this He was sure you were harmless Really, a *tame* werewolf... (to Black, pointing his wand at Black's head) Give me a reason Give me a reason and I swear Dementors will be so pleased Enough to give you a kiss Vengeance is so very sweet (to Hermione) Hold your tongue you stupid girl All of you are out of bounds Should not even talk about What you do not understand (to Harry) Don't you talk to me like that They'll have a kiss for Lupin, too Get out of the way, you fool! (Harry, Ron and Hermione point their wands at Snape and simultaneously cry, "Expelliarmus!" Then a blast. Snape is lifted off his feet and slammed into the wall, then slides down it to the floor, a trickle of blood oozing from under his hair.) Hermione: We attacked a teacher tonight... Black: You know you should not have done that... Hermione: We'll be in so much trouble now Black: You all should have left him to me Harry: This doesn't mean I believe you Black: Believe me, Harry...let me explain -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From judyshapiro at directvinternet.com Sun Dec 15 01:58:21 2002 From: judyshapiro at directvinternet.com (Judy ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:58:21 -0000 Subject: Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48340 eillim said that Snape is: > a fine example of a Bryonic hero, > full of angst, tortured, definately a > misogynist, with a mysterious past.... I've been wanting to post on this thread, but haven't had the time. I *have* to defend Our Severus against the charge of misogyny, though! I doubt that I'd like Snape if he were a misogynist. (That's someone who hates women, for anyone who isn't familiar with the term.) Generally, Snape seems angry at *men*, not women. Sirius, Harry, James, Lupin -- he rails against all of them, but never against Lily. (I'm one of those who thinks Snape was in love with her.) He also seems respectful of the abilities of the female teachers, saying nothing (that we see) against any of them, not even Trelawney. On the other hand, he makes no secret of the fact that he thinks some of the male teachers -- Lupin and Lockhart -- are unqualified to teach. The only evidence I see that Snape dislike women is: 1) He is sometimes mean to Hermione. Counterargument: He is meaner to Neville. Also, it is possible that his behavior towards Hermione is due to a desire to impress the Death Eaters' kids of his hatred of "mudbloods." He also no doubt dislikes anything that disrupts his teaching plan, whether it's Neville melting cauldrons, or Hermione answering questions that he intended to be too hard for the class. 2) There are no girls on the Slytherin Quidditch team. Counterargument: We have no idea that Snape has anything to do with this. Maybe no girls were interested, maybe there's an old house policy that only boys can play, maybe Marcus Flint gets to make the decisions on his own. etc. eillim added: > I also think that part of the appeal > is that there are many blanks > that we can choose to fill in for ourselves. Here, I agree completetly. I think one of the main reasons people disagree so much about Snape is because we have different guesses about his back story. Was he always a bitter, hostile person, or did something really bad happen to him? Was he the one who tried to save James and Lily from Voldemort, and would he have succeeded if James had been willing to let Dumbledore serve as Secret Keeper? Is there a "good reason," such as needing to impress the Death Eaters, for his hostility to Neville (the son of a famous Aurur) and Hermione (a muggle-born)? How sympathetic he is depends greatly on one's beliefs about these sorts of questions. and, eillim said: > Finally, I wondered if the fact that Krum's physical appearance to > Snape is of any particular significance. ('sallow skin', 'hooked > nose'). I did trawl through the messages but couldn't find much on > this. It's been discussed, but the search function here makes things hard to find. Many posters, myself included, think JKR is hinting at a past sexual relationship between Snape and Karkaroff. Karkaroff is described as looking at Krum and Hermione dancing with the same expression as Ron, and Ron is presumably jealous. Karkaroff also seems to be trying to ply Krum with wine when we first meet him. So, the idea here is that perhaps JKR is hinting that a young Snape would have appealed to Karkaroff. I've mentioned that Karkaroff is the *only* person in canon that Snape addresses by first name, suggesting some sort of previous close relationship between them. -- Judy Serenity, also a huge Snapefan From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Sun Dec 15 02:27:07 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:27:07 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unforgivable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48341 > From: Tammy Bianchi > > This has been bothering me for a while. Why does Crouch!Moody make sure > that Harry learns to fight the imperio curse? I would have expected > someone that was helping V to get Harry to try to send him as unprepared > as possible. My next question is why focus so much on teaching all the > students how to break the imperio curse when he is just supposed to be > showing the curses to them. I believe the answer to this is that Crouch > Jr. didn't want anyone to suffer as he did all these years his father > kept him in hiding. But, this would give Crouch Jr. a little to much > credit. After all he did keep Real!Moody under imperio all this time. I wondered about this, but the answer is obvious really: it was in character. I'm not sure we give Barty Crouch enough credit. He managed to pretend to be Mad-Eye Moody for an entire year, even fooling Dumbledore, who in addition to not being an idiot is a personal long-time friend of Moody's. That's some impressive acting. Anyhow, Dumbledore told Moody to make sure the students were familliar with the Unforgivable Curses, and therefore it would have been out of character for Barty to be anything less than overwhelmingly thorough and paranoid. The real Moody would certainly have made sure Harry Potter could throw off the Imperius Curse, if Harry showed any signs of being capable of doing it. I imagine Barty wasn't too happy about this, as he knew perfectly well that Harry would be coming face-to-face with Voldemort (known for making use of the Imperius Curse), but there wasn't anything he could do without blowing his cover. Plus, I very much doubt there was a way for him to warn Voldemort or Peter that Harry could break the curse; I doubt there was any contact made between Voldemort and Crouch Jr. while Crouch Jr was in disguise; he couldn't risk any possibility of someone guessing that he wasn't what he seemed. But still, Harry's ability to fight of Imperio is not very important, at least not yet. No part of the plan to bring Voldemort back required that Harry be put under the Imperius Curse; Voldemort just did that for a bit of fun, in an attempt to bring Harry to his knees. Cruciatus seemed to work just as well. (I was a bit relieved by that, though I hate the idea of Harry in so much pain. The boy can fight off Imperius, and AK apparently doesn't work on him; if Crucio didn't have an affect either, I'd be wondering if Harry's even human!) Ashfae From urbana at charter.net Sun Dec 15 02:40:38 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 02:40:38 -0000 Subject: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody " wrote: > I did not mean to say his "interest" in Quidditch could become > obsessive. What is borderline obsessive is the *way* Harry has to > play the game. When Harry is on the field and in the game, he *is* > supposed to have a one-track mind. Find the snitch before the other > seeker does. He kind of has to look out for bludgers, but he is not > supposed to. That is the beaters job. What Harry has to do is bend > his mind on that small golden snitch. That is all. That is also very > close cousin to obsession. Actually, to me that sounds less like obsession and more like the possiblity that Harry "lets himself be one with the snitch", in order to be able to sense where it is and find and catch it first. That's really a pretty Zen concept, IMO. Many sports seem to have a Zen-like aspect to them, and high-level athletes are notorious for "getting into the zone." Harry is "the youngest seeker in a hundred years" and is obviously a "natural" at the sport, so it didn't surprise me too much that, once he'd received some formal training from Oliver Wood, the Zen of Quidditch manifested itself in how he plays his position. Anne U, who remembers Harry riding the broomstick like a skateboard, almost as if he was thinking "The better to reach you and catch you, my dear"... From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 05:22:10 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:22:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: <12a.1d614eb6.2b2bba56@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021215052210.30220.qmail@web20005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48343 --- eloiseherisson at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 13/12/2002 07:07:53 GMT Standard > Time, > Malady579 at hotmail.com writes: > > > > >In the Second Task, the competitors had to seek > their lost friends. > > >All sought, but the winner was the one sought > with the interests of > > >the "lost" uppermost in his considerations, > rather than thought of > > >personal gain. > > > > Melody: > > > <>Task Two: Can you honestly say that the > tournament was not about > > winning? Winning for your school, house, country? > When they were in > > that lake they were wanting to get their hostage > first because they > > wanted to get back to the finish line first. No > because they thought > > the person was in danger. Only Harry was thick > enough to believe > > that. Hmm, I disagree. It seemed to me that Fleur took the threat very seriously. She was, after all, fighting Maxime to go to Gabrielle. That Cedric and Krum didn't believe they would die, I give you, but I can't agree about Fleur. She seemed waaay to upset about it. She was worried about Gabrielle, not points. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Dec 15 08:35:02 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 03:35:02 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unforgivable Curses Message-ID: <6f.32565652.2b2d98b6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48344 Ashfae: > > From: Tammy Bianchi > > > > This has been bothering me for a while. Why does Crouch!Moody make sure > > that Harry learns to fight the imperio curse? I would have expected > > someone that was helping V to get Harry to try to send him as unprepared > > as possible. My next question is why focus so much on teaching all the > > students how to break the imperio curse when he is just supposed to be > > showing the curses to them. I believe the answer to this is that Crouch > > Jr. didn't want anyone to suffer as he did all these years his father > > kept him in hiding. But, this would give Crouch Jr. a little to much > > credit. After all he did keep Real!Moody under imperio all this time. Ashfae: > > I wondered about this, but the answer is obvious really: it was in > character. I'm not sure we give Barty Crouch enough credit. Eloise: Oh, some of us give him credit! There is a (possibly small) band of loyal Crouch Jr fans out here! > The real Moody would certainly have made sure Harry > Potter could throw off > the Imperius Curse, if Harry showed any signs of being capable of doing it. > I imagine Barty wasn't too happy about this, as he knew perfectly well that > Harry would be coming face-to-face with Voldemort (known for making use of > the Imperius Curse), but there wasn't anything he could do without blowing > his cover. > But still, Harry's ability to fight of Imperio is not very > important, at least not yet. > Eloise: I have suggested before now that the reason that Moody teaches Harry to resist the Imperius is precisely because it *is* important in the plan to bring Voldemort back. Harry had to win the Tournament as part of that plan. He had to win it despite the presence of Karkaroff, reputed to *teach* the Dark Arts, and a contingent of Durmstrang students. Particularly given Karkaroff's reactions to Harry's inclusion in the Tournament, Crouch must have had it in mind that he or one of his students might Imperio Harry to throw the Tournament. Crouch himself Imperio's Krum into performing an Unforgivable in the maze, doesn't he, so Karkaroff could have done the same. I'm sure that he wanted to know if Harry *did* have the ability to fight the Imperius. If he didn't, then Crouch's game plan for guiding him throught the Tournament would have to be slightly different. Perhaps if he could't resist, Crouch himself would have used the Imnperius on Harry to make him win the Tournament. It might have made things a bit easier! He could have Imperio'd him into finding out how to succeed in the Second Task, for instance, by sending him for a dip with the egg and making him ask Neville for advice. But having found out that he *did* have the ability to resist, then Crouch's only option was to make sure that he could resist well enough that no-one else could interfere with his plans by Imperioing Harry. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kateydidnt2002 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 08:56:56 2002 From: kateydidnt2002 at yahoo.com (kateydidnt2002 ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 08:56:56 -0000 Subject: The Unforgivable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Ashfae wrote: > anything he could do without blowing his cover. Plus, I very much doubt > there was a way for him to warn Voldemort or Peter that Harry could break > the curse; I doubt there was any contact made between Voldemort and Crouch > Jr. while Crouch Jr was in disguise; he couldn't risk any possibility of > someone guessing that he wasn't what he seemed. > Actually we know that Crouch jr did contact Voldemort while he was in disguise. Harry's second dream in book 4, after he falls asleep in Divination, is a letter from Crouch jr to Voldemort saying that Crouch jr killed Crouch sr. That was the "blunder" that Wormtail had made (allowing Crouch sr to escape) but Crouch jr fixed that problem. Kateydidnt From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Dec 15 09:11:34 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:11:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Map (was: Re: Thoughts on PoA Snape & What Snape In-Reply-To: <00d001c2a254$fd667ca0$7c05a6d8@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48346 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Give that woman a gold star. Thank you very much! I'll pin it next to my Exploding S.N.A.P. (Snape's not A Psychopath) badge on my B.A.B.E.M.E.I.S.T.E.R. (don't ask me what that stands for!) tee shirt. > Eloise ventured: > > > I know I'm going to regret this, O Revered Arch L.O.O.N., but don't these > two > > paragraphs contradict each other? Snape doesn't hear Lupin's original > > explanation that they created the Map (just before he enters) but *does* > hear > > the reprise as you indicated in your original post. Amanda: > > Caught. You're entirely correct. I was working from memory rather than the > book itself, and Lupin does indeed mention again, this time in Snape's > hearing, that he and the others made the map. I must figure out what > L.O.O.N.s do when they trip up; I really don't want to iron anything > attached to me.... Eloise: Oh, please don't, Amanda! I'll let you into a secret.......I very nearly posted the same thing myself. In fact I think I'd actually written it when, being a little neurotic on occasion (and aspiring to L.O.O.N.acy myself), I went back and checked the text; I've been caught out too many times before. ;-) So that was the only reason I caught it. > > However, given what I was speculating about Snape's reactions and possible > rationales for them, this adds fuel to a couple of the fires, doesn't it? > Which means, I suppose, that pickle jimmy was right in the first place. Oh, > well. Eloise: It also highlights what I regard as one of the more obvious of JKR's plot manipulations. I cannot, for the life of me work out why Snape didn't tell Dumbledore about the Map. I suppose that perhaps he didn't realise that Lupin would give it back to Harry. But why on earth didn't he simply pocket it when he found it in Lupin's office? And how did he tell his side of the story to Dumbledore and Fudge without mentioning it? Why does Dumbledore still know nothing about it until Crouch Jr tells of it under interrogation? > ~Amanda, duly chastened L.O.O.N. ~Eloise, Aspirant L.O.O.N. Hoping that the last paragraph isn't repeating anything from earlier in the thread. I got so spectacularly behind that my mail box was refusing to take any more messages and it took me a while to realise. From bloubet at incanmonkey.com Sun Dec 15 09:30:30 2002 From: bloubet at incanmonkey.com (bloubet at incanmonkey.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 02:30:30 -0700 (MST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] There is only power In-Reply-To: <1039940214.1153.57532.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <1039944630.41747@incanmonkey.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48347 > bloubet wrote: bic> (all IMHO, of course) Power is a tool. You can have bic> good and evil, and also have power. If you use power as bic> a tool for good, you're still good. If you use it as a bic> tool for evil, you're still evil. Power is neutral. bic> Seeking power is not evil. Power can be used for good, bic> and can be obtained without hurting yourself or anyone bic> else. Alexander said: > Questionable, of course. Tolkien was quite adamant at it: Power *is* Evil. Then there's "power corrupts" theory, which I consider absolutely correct (btw do you know the political life as it is? Not a nice sight, I assure you, even if you are "on the side of Good"). > > As for belief that power can be obtained without hurting anyone else, I find that absolutely improbable. Power is power, and there's not unlimited amount of it, and whichever power exists, it already belongs to someone, so it's simply impossible to gain power without crossing someone else's interests (which interests might actually be very good and noble indeed).<< (I'm not addressing the rest of your post because I think, for the most part, we agree.) I must humbly apologize to Tolkien and disagree with him vehemently. I agree that power *can* corrupt, but not that it always does. Gandhi and Mother Theresa come to mind. There have been many powerful individuals who didn't abuse their power and weren't corrupted by it, IMHO. I think the key may be that the *desire* for power, in and of itself, is likely to corrupt or be perceived as evil. People like Gandhi were seeking other goals and, in their search, acquired power -- which they then used for good. I also don't believe in the finite power pool, which limits the acquisition of power to that which can be taken from someone else, hurting them in the process. Let's say that a friend of mine starts up his own company and hires me as office manager. He has given me the power to make important decisions regarding company policy and expenditures. It's a real form of power. But he GAVE it to me. I didn't take it from anyone. And in exercising my power, I'm helping the person who gave it to me, not hurting anyone. Hmm... OK, not a GREAT example, because there is still a power exchange there, implying a finite pool. But I think I at least countered the point that you have to hurt someone else to acquire power. bel From ilovelucius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 06:52:12 2002 From: ilovelucius at yahoo.com (Robin Van Dusen) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:52:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups]Snape/Javert similarities (was Re: (FILK) The Explanation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021215065212.93174.qmail@web14512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48348 Gail Bohacek wrote: >The Explanation >(A FILK to the tune of _The Confrontation_ from the >musical _Les >Miserables_) >Dedicated to Melody who gave me the suggestion...and >to Audra, who also >thinks that Snape makes a great Javert (hope this isn't too OT, moderators :-) I'm still new at this!) I would like to second that motion, Snape and Javert actually are very similar upon closer inspection. They both take the law and doing what is right to a dark extreme, and both are DEAD SEXY as well (that's for you Wendy! Audra, Melody and Gail, I hope you are also Snapefans!) This ties in well with eillim's earlier thread as to why women find Snape attractive. IMO, there is something to this aspect of these two mens particular insanity, "full of angst, tortured" (per eillim in the other Snape thread) which is as I see how one becomes after having experienced earlier major tragedy or incident (perhaps the victim of sexual abuse as a minor - Karkaroff? Book 4) and SURVIVED! Javert says to Valjean in Les Mis: "I was born inside a jail, I was born with scum like you, I am from the gutter, too". This shows an overall strength and ability to survive, things which are definitely attractive to women. There is still however a definite mystery as to what exactly happened to these men to turn out so, but hopefully we will have some more insight into this for our dear Snapey in book 5 or on. BTW Gail, brilliant FILK!!!!!! It did work out perfectly :-) I am also a HUGE Les Mis fan! Robin (who has a splitting headache and is off to bed, so hopes all of this is of any interest to anyone!) (also a Lucius lover! but cannot find much canon to support why this is so, It just must be a general bad-boy thing! What must he have experienced to become so!) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Sun Dec 15 14:37:44 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9 ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:37:44 -0000 Subject: Draco, the Sacrificial Ferret (was: Re: Draco to the Light Side?) In-Reply-To: <1c3.284d25c.2b1fc064@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48349 Apologies for the delay in replying to this A while ago (post 47728), Richelle said: >> [If Draco dies] I think it may be more of a, what's >> the word, casualty? No. Martyr? No. Anyway, can't >> find the right word. Something like Voldemort >> killing/torturing him when he gets in a mood and >> Lucius standing idly by. Able, but not willing >> to save him. What's the word for that? and Scheherazade added: > Like Othello, he learns the truth about his actions, > then dies. But I doubt he'd kill himself like Othello did. Richelle made the same point over on the movie list (hope it's OK to bring this over ? seems more on topic here than there) and Wanda replied (HPFGU-Movie post 4218): > I think this goes with the general "unnaturalness" > that follows Voldemort wherever he is powerful. I > wouldn't be surprised to find that one of his > followers would be willing to sacrifice his own > child - would anyone take a bet that if Voldemort > had wanted Draco killed as part of his > "resurrection", Lucius would have refused? I don't > think so. Now me: I'm not normally a betting person, especially where the mind of JKR is concerned, but this seems to be a fairly safe one as we'll never find out for sure! I certainly don't think Lucius would have *willingly* sacrificed Draco at the end of Book 4 ? he may not love or like his son but that doesn't mean he regards him as dispensable. Whether he might have done it under duress depends on his relationship with Voldemort, of which we know too little IMO to judge. I wouldn't discount something like this happening in the future, but not unless Lucius has secured the family line in someone he considers more worthy than Draco, or unless Draco turns against his father and it becomes too dangerous to let him live. And, unless we have some considerable Draco character development soon, I think that is only likely to happen if Voldemort preys on Lucius or Narcissa first. But I'm quite ready for JKR to prove me wrong; I've never managed to outguess her so far! Or perhaps Voldemort will require Draco's sacrifice as a test of Lucius' loyalty, but I doubt he's going to do so for the next couple of years ? he needs Lucius to keep pulling the wool over Fudge's eyes (or to help Evil!Fudge do same to the rest of the MoM) until he can establish his reign of terror again. Hmmm, how about that for a deliciously tragic end to the Malfoys: Lucius betrays Draco, only to be betrayed himself by Voldemort ? both finally realising the error of their ways as they die... Anyhow, I couldn't resist playing the initials game with the theory: S.A.C.R.I.F.I.C.I.A.L. F.E.R.R.E.T.: Son's Attitude Change Results In Father's Implicit Collusion In Awful Lord's Family-Embracing Ritual Requiring Evil Torture Any takers/improvements? Chthonia (hoping against hope that the Malfoys will avoid meeting a `sticky end') From Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 15:37:17 2002 From: Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com (Darla ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 15:37:17 -0000 Subject: House Sortings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48350 Hey all, I'm sure we're all pretty familiar with the qualities generally associated with each of the four houses... But the over-lap between them has always made me wonder. Obviously Slytherin/Gryffindor have over-lapping qualities, as do Ravenclaw/Gryffindor and even Slytherin/Ravenclaw... But why does Hufflepuff seem to stand so alone from these three houses? I realise obviously J.K can not devote as much time to Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff as she does the other two.... but it still seems very much the isolated and almost disprespected house. Can anyone come up with a plausible purpose for/behind this? :-( Darla. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 15 17:10:38 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 17:10:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Map (was: Re: Thoughts on PoA Snape & What Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48351 Eloise: > It also highlights what I regard as one of the more obvious of JKR's > plot manipulations. > I cannot, for the life of me work out why Snape didn't tell > Dumbledore about the Map. I suppose that perhaps he didn't realise that Lupin would give it back to Harry. But why on earth didn't he simply pocket it when he found it in Lupin's office? And how did he tell his side of the story to Dumbledore and Fudge without mentioning it? Why does Dumbledore still know nothing about it until Crouch Jr tells of it under interrogation?<< It sounds Flinty...but let's see. Crouch/Moody claims "Auror's privilege," as his justification for searching another wizard's office. Snape isn't an Auror, so maybe he'd rather not tell Dumbledore or Fudge that he entered Lupin's office without permission. Snape doesn't say how he got into Lupin's office in the first place. Did Lupin leave the door open, or did Snape break in? Anyway, all Snape had to say is something like, "I was bringing Lupin his potion when I saw him running across the grounds. I followed him..." There are several reasons why Snape wouldn't want to take the Map with him. (1) A good investigator doesn't disturb the evidence. (2) Snape thinks the Map is a piece of Dark Magic that might be dangerous to handle. (3) He can't take anything away without revealing that someone was there. The Egg and The Eye chapter in GoF creates further difficulties along this line. Why didn't Snape tell Dumbledore about the Map then? But explaining to Dumbledore about the Map would be difficult without evidence. Snape's cried 'Wolf' far too many times. Worse, if Snape's in high dudgeon about Moody rumbling his office, he's in no position to confess that, er, he did the same thing to Lupin. So Snape doesn't mention the Map at all. After all, *he's* not the Defense Against the Dark Arts Master at the school. JKR shows us how this works with Snape's interrogation of Harry about the missing potions ingredients. If Snape and Harry had pooled their information, they would have realized what was happening, but Harry doesn't want his friends to be punished for burgling Snape's office. So he doesn't tell Snape what he knows, and Snape, in turn, doesn't mention that the theft of the boomslang skin was recent. Like a real spy, Crouch/Moody benefits because his enemies don't share their information with each other. Of course we should also come up with an explanation of why neither Lupin nor Sirius tells Dumbledore about the map. Could it be that there *is* some Dark Magic in it? Not enough to be dangerous to Harry, but enough so that they would feel that what Dumbledore doesn't know won't hurt him? Or did they tell Dumbledore about the Map, and is Dumbledore's "What map is this?" question misleading, because Dumbledore doesn't want Harry thinking that Lupin and Sirius won't keep his confidences? Pippin From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Sun Dec 15 17:24:20 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9 ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 17:24:20 -0000 Subject: There is only power In-Reply-To: <1039944630.41747@incanmonkey.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48352 Bloubet wrote: B> (all IMHO, of course) Power is a tool. You can have B> good and evil, and also have power. [snip] Power is B> neutral. Seeking power is not evil. Power can be used B> for good, and can be obtained without hurting yourself B> or anyone else. and Alexander replied: A> Questionable, of course. Tolkien was quite adamant A> at it: Power *is* Evil. Then there's "power corrupts" A> theory, which I consider absolutely correct [snip] A> A> As for belief that power can be obtained without A> hurting anyone else, I find that absolutely improbable. A> Power is power, and there's not unlimited amount of A> it, and whichever power exists, it already belongs to A> someone to which bloubet responded: B> [snip] I agree that power *can* corrupt, but not that B> it always does. Gandhi and Mother Theresa come to B> mind. There have been many powerful individuals who B> didn't abuse their power and weren't corrupted by it, B> IMHO. I think the key may be that the *desire* for B> power, in and of itself, is likely to corrupt or be B> perceived as evil. People like Gandhi were seeking other B> goals and, in their search, acquired power -- which they B> then used for good. It depends on your view of power. I like Starhawk's distinction (in her book `Truth or Dare') between `power-over', linked to domination, manipulation and control; `power-with' ? social power, the influence wielded among equals - and `power-from-within', linked to our deepest abilities and potentials. It is power-over that is usually considered `power' in the Western mindset, and guess this is what Alexander is referring to. IMO it is power-over that corrupts (though it *can* be used wisely ? Dumbledore certainly has `power-over' the students, for example), and where relationships are defined by hierarchies of dominance, there *is* a finite pool of power. Gandhi and Mother Theresa developed strong power-from-within, and as a result gained respect and therefore influence (`power-with'). I agree that it is desire for power in itself that is likely to lead to `evil' ? if the desirers goals were likely to garner support In the Potterverse, I believe we see a clash of power-over and power- with. Voldemort and his supporters thrive by wielding the tools of power-over: fear and violence (Voldemort in the cemetery scene in GoF, Lucius in his intimidation (not persuasion) of the Board of Governors in CoS, Draco using the implied threats of Crabbe, Goyle and his father, Death Eaters using the Dark Mark to spread terror). Dumbledore's power in the WW, on the other hand, is `power-with' ? he is asked for advice because people respect his abilities and judgement. We also see this in the relationships between the Trio ? suggestions are made and accepted on merit; persuasion is based on `what is right' rather than `who I am' or `what I can do to you.' Power-from-within is IMO what gives someone the ability to throw off Imperius, or to be a powerful witch. I'm not sure whether this sort of power is neutral ? one's deepest abilities can be used for good or evil (Riddle/Voldemort must have had plenty of power-from-within), though IRL I tend to assume that it's not possible to reach one's fullest potential in the corrupting service of power-over... Chthonia From voldemort at tut.by Sun Dec 15 17:33:47 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 19:33:47 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: There is only power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12125342106.20021215193347@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48353 Greetings! > Chthonia wrote: cchc> It is power-over that is usually considered `power' in cchc> the Western mindset, and guess this is what Alexander cchc> is referring to. IMO it is power-over that corrupts cchc> (though it *can* be used wisely Dumbledore certainly cchc> has `power-over' the students, for example), and where cchc> relationships are defined by hierarchies of dominance, cchc> there *is* a finite pool of power. Unfortunately, I can add little to Chtonia's perfect reply, except for one fact: Dumbledore *refused* to get the position of Minister of Magic - the topmost power-over'ish position in WW. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From ingachristsuperstar at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 17:58:49 2002 From: ingachristsuperstar at yahoo.com (ingachristsuperstar ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 17:58:49 -0000 Subject: The Unforgivable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy Bianchi" < Resqgal911 at m...> wrote: > This has been bothering me for a while. Why does Crouch!Moody make sure > that Harry learns to fight the imperio curse? I would have expected someone > that was helping V to get Harry to try to send him as unprepared as > possible. My next question is why focus so much on teaching all the > students how to break the imperio curse when he is just supposed to be > showing the curses to them. I believe the answer to this is that Crouch Jr. > didn't want anyone to suffer as he did all these years his father kept him > in hiding. But, this would give Crouch Jr. a little to much credit. After > all he did keep Real!Moody under imperio all this time. > > Tammy I agree with a lot of the points made in the other posts, but I wanted to add one more possibility. I think that a lot of what happened in the graveyard was pagentry. Voldemort felt he had to prove himself to the Death Eaters again - and especially to prove that he was stronger than Harry Potter who had 'defeated' him last time. Now, he could have done this by showing he could put Harry under Imperio. But an even more effective demonstration could have been for Crouch!Moody to teach Harry to fight Imperio. Then Voldemort would be demonstrating - "look how powerful Harry Potter is and _I can still defeat him_". I don't think he wanted Harry to be weak. A weak Harry would not have made Voldie look good, because it was Harry who defeated him. Showing that he could defeat a strong and accomplished Harry who had just won the Tri-Wizard Tournament and could fight Imperio would be much more impressive. Just a thought. -Ing From twileen at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 18:05:45 2002 From: twileen at yahoo.com (Twileen Janeen) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:05:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and His Mom (formerly "Evil and Stuff") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021215180545.13030.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48355 > > > Angela wrote: > > > EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Voldemort does love his > mother. > >Tanya wrote: > > > Me: Does he really? Dumbledore tells Harry that > Voldemort > doesn't > > understand love, especially (if I'm not mistaken) > the love > between > > mother and son. > > Strix wrote: > I think I can make sense of the idea that he loves > his mother and > at the same time doesn't really understand love. He > idealizes > her; he has made her into this saintly martyr in his > head. The > poor innocent sweet perfect witch who was dumped by > an icky > nasty Muggle and died bearing him. It's very easy > to idealize, > and to feel an almost religious devotion toward, > someone you > never truly know deeply. He has her on a pedestal, > but doesn't > really understand how to love and care about an > ordinary, flawed > human being, year in and year out, through thick and > thin, etc. > Now Me: A big difference here is that Harry's mother died to save Harry. Tom's mother died from weakness, her death probably had a lot to do with the pregnancy and birth. And when she died he had to grow up in a *muggle* institution; a place that he hated. We know that he blames his father, and he makes speaches about his poor abandoned mother. But he could just be using her for dynamics, to make what he says more powerful. Chances are he holds a lot of hate for her as well. She was too weak to be a mother to him. She failed were muggle borns like Lily Potter could easily have succeeded, had he not intervened. -twileen __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From mb1984 at prodigy.net Sun Dec 15 18:52:15 2002 From: mb1984 at prodigy.net (MB1984) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:52:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House Sortings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48356 -----Original Message----- From: Darla But why does Hufflepuff seem to stand so alone from these three houses? it still seems very much the isolated and almost disprespected house. Can anyone come up with a plausible purpose for/behind this? :-( I'm not sure there's necessarily a purpose behind it per se, but I think there are some reasons why the House has the image it does: 1) It/its founder has a silly name. Sillier than the other three, at any rate, and the name itself brings to mind some rather lame ideas (huffy, puff, pouf as opposed to cooler words/ideas such as slither, claw, raven, griffin). Even the mascot is sort of uncool, at least compared to those of the other houses. 2) The house is associated with characteristics (loyalty, kindness, hard work) that are sometimes considered weakness by more aggressive, assertive types. Draco's comments to Harry in the Robe shop in book #1 come to mind. 3) The house members can be seen in negative terms - they're not brave enough for Gryffindor, not smart enough for Ravenclaw, not ambitious/cunning enough for Slytherin... From this perspective Hufflepuff could be looked at as the "leftover" house. On the other hand, I wonder if there won't be some expansion of Hufflepuff's image in future books as Harry gets older and wiser. I think it's pretty telling that not only was Cedric Diggory smart, handsome, and decent, but it was he amongst all the eligible Hogwarts students who was actually chosen by the Goblet to be the Hogwarts Champion. Millefiori From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Dec 15 19:43:22 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 13:43:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House Sortings References: Message-ID: <3DFCDB5A.B5C12FE8@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48357 MB1984 wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Darla > But why does Hufflepuff seem to stand so alone from these three > houses? > it still seems very much the isolated and almost disprespected > house. > Can anyone come up with a plausible purpose for/behind this? :-( > > I'm not sure there's necessarily a purpose behind it per se, but I > think > there are some reasons why the House has the image it does: > > 1) It/its founder has a silly name. Sillier than the other three, at > any > rate, and the name itself brings to mind some rather lame ideas > (huffy, > puff, pouf as opposed to cooler words/ideas such as slither, claw, > raven, > griffin). Even the mascot is sort of uncool, at least compared to > those of > the other houses. > What? Badgers are VERY cool, more so then a raven or a snake, I would say. I always liked the fact that one of the mascots was a badger, though I still like ferrets more, having had them as pets. Too many times members of the weasel family are downtrodden, Disney weasels always being villains, the Redwall books having ferrets and weasel as bad guys, etc. While badgers are a member of the weasel family, they are not what people classically think of as a weasel, but I like that fact they were included. > 2) The house is associated with characteristics (loyalty, kindness, > hard > work) that are sometimes considered weakness by more aggressive, > assertive > types. Draco's comments to Harry in the Robe shop in book #1 come to > mind. I value hard work and loyalty over misguided bravery or ambition. Hufflepuff is the 'backbone' of Hoggwarts. Those who get where they are by hard work and not born with fame, greatness, etc. The young wizards who are not afraid or too proud to get their hands dirty and do an honest days work. They are the underdog, yes, but think of how great it will be when Hufflepuff comes out on top, because they would really deserve it for all the hard work they put into it. Now lets go out there and win one for Cedric! > > 3) The house members can be seen in negative terms - they're not brave > enough for Gryffindor, not smart enough for Ravenclaw, not > ambitious/cunning > enough for Slytherin... From this perspective Hufflepuff could be > looked at > as the "leftover" house. Leftover indeed. Hufflepuff is underrated if people think that, since I would rather have a group of Hufflepuffs behind me in a fight then a group of Slytherins anyday. Cause the Slytherins might run away if they thought they were losing, but the Hufflepuffs would fight to the last man out of loyalty. > > On the other hand, I wonder if there won't be some expansion of > Hufflepuff's > image in future books as Harry gets older and wiser. I think it's > pretty > telling that not only was Cedric Diggory smart, handsome, and decent, > but it > was he amongst all the eligible Hogwarts students who was actually > chosen by > the Goblet to be the Hogwarts Champion. > > Millefiori The Goblet is wiser then people think then. Cedric is the time that any would want as a friend, good looks or not. His honesty and sense of 'right' even in the face of his father's going on about him beating Harry, was really refreshing. He took only credit for what he did and not what people think he did. Harry should have made more of an effort to befriend him earlier as he would have been the best friend he could have had. Jazmyn From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Dec 15 20:34:14 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 20:34:14 -0000 Subject: Nimbus - 2003: Fandom Culture Panels (we need fans) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48358 Hi all -- It's hard to believe it, but eight months from now, Nimbus 2003 will be fandom history. When the dust settles, what part will you have played? We really need your help... Are you convinced that your ship is true love... or do you think all ships should sink? Are you in love with poor ickle misunderstood Draco Malfoy... or do you think he's a nasty little bugger? Can you remember the Dark Ages of Harry Potter fandom... or are you an baby newbie? Do you think Snape is a vampire? Do you think he's sexy? Do you think he's just *greasy*? Are you addicted to slash? How do you write it? What sort of slashy premises and ideas get your creative juices going? We are looking for a Few Good Fans to talk to Other Fans at Nimbus about different aspects of the Harry Potter series. Just talk, in a moderated roundtable panel-sort-of-discussion. No academic credentials necessary. No strings attached. No catches you can't live with. Who can sit on one of these panels? You can! You don't have to run a website or write fanfic or run a marathon or do anything besides be a fan of the Harry Potter series. Hey... you can even be a lurker! We'd love to meet you! The only requirement in order to be considered for this fun and historic happening is to be a registered attendee at Nimbus. So if you began to go on one of your famous rants when you read one of the hot-button questions about... we're looking for you! Yes, you! And you! And you too! The Nimbus Programming Committee would like *you* to serve on one of the following moderated fandom culture forum-style panels: --The Deathmarch Goes Offline: Ron/Hermione vs. Harry/Hermione! --Resolved: Can Draco Malfoy Be Redeemed? --Once Upon a Time-Turner: The History of Harry Potter Fandom --Slytherins, Smoke, and Shadows: The Secret Life of Severus Snape in Fanon --Coming Out of the Cupboard: Slash in Harry Potter Fandom You will be required to do the following, if chosen to present on one of these teams: a) Register for Nimbus. You must be registered for Nimbus on or before Wednesday, January 15, 2003, in order to participate. b) Prepare a 500-1000 word "opening statement" on your chosen topic, with examples from accepted Harry Potter canon sources. ("Canon" for our purposes will be defined at a later date.) c) Be willing to make a positive contribution to Nimbus! Or... if you have another idea, you may... Propose another topic as a panel, paper, or other presentation! If you are interested in any of the above topics at all, please visit the following website form: http://www.hp2003.org/nimbuscfpsubmit.php And follow THESE instructions: 1) Fill in the Contact Information sections. We need your RL name, a way to contact you offline, etc. Yes, Virginia Weasley, all required fields are really required! 2) In the proposal information section: --In the space labeled "Title of Proposal", type the name of the created panel above that you'd like to sit on. --In the "Brief Description of Proposal" section, please type a 1-2 paragraph SUMMARY of your position on the fandom culture topic for which you'd like to serve on a panel. This doesn't have to be academic. This doesn't have to be deep. Just pretend as if you are composing a post for your LiveJournal, or sites/lists like HP4GU, the SugarQuill, FictionAlley, hpslash, WIKTT, or the Dark Mark... as a matter of fact, if you've got a post stashed away somewhere that fully states your position on the topic, then simply cut and paste. (It's... like magic!) --"Type of Presentation" -- please select Other. --"Approximate duration of presentation" -- type in 60 minutes (although if we get lots of interest on the topics, we'll expand!) --"Track" -- select Fandom Culture. --"Special Accommodations" -- ignore unless you or your presentation have special needs that we need to know about. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at cfp at hp2003.org... we'd be more than happy to lend a helping hand! We'll send you a confirmation e-mail as soon as we get your proposal. After that, sit tight -- you'll get an answer sometime after February 1 so that you can begin planning your strategy! And while you're waiting, don't forget to register for Nimbus! Thanks a lot for your help. Can't wait to see what your ideas are! Magically yours, Ebony AKA AngieJ Co-Chaser, Programming Team Nimbus - 2003, A Harry Potter Symposium From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Dec 15 20:43:11 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 15:43:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and the Map (was: Re: Thoughts on PoA Snape & What ... Message-ID: <104.220ff567.2b2e435f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48359 Pippin: > > Eloise: > > It also highlights what I regard as one of the more obvious of > JKR's > > plot manipulations. > > I cannot, for the life of me work out why Snape didn't tell > > Dumbledore about the Map. I suppose that perhaps he didn't > realise that Lupin would give it back to Harry. But why on earth > didn't he simply pocket it when he found it in Lupin's office? And > how did he tell his side of the story to Dumbledore and Fudge > without mentioning it? Why does Dumbledore still know nothing > about it until Crouch Jr tells of it under interrogation?<< > > Pippin: > It sounds Flinty...but let's see. Crouch/Moody claims "Auror's > privilege," as his justification for searching another wizard's > office. Snape isn't an Auror, so maybe he'd rather not tell > Dumbledore or Fudge that he entered Lupin's office without > permission. Snape doesn't say how he got into Lupin's office in > the first place. Did Lupin leave the door open, or did Snape break > in? Anyway, all Snape had to say is something like, "I was > bringing Lupin his potion when I saw him running across the > grounds. I followed him..." Eloise: Exactly. He *was* taking Lupin his potion, so he had a reason to be in his office, although as you say, *how* he got into his office was another matter. But would he be likely to see Lupin running across the grounds on a journey between his dungeon and wherever Lupin's office is? Pippin: > > There are several reasons why Snape wouldn't want to take the > Map with him. (1) A good investigator doesn't disturb the > evidence. (2) Snape thinks the Map is a piece of Dark Magic that > might be dangerous to handle. (3) He can't take anything away > without revealing that someone was there. > > Eloise: 1) True. But he would have picked it up off the stairs, wouldn't he? 2) He's already handled it and the worse it did was insult him. I can understand that he doesn't want a repetition of that, though. ;-) 3) True. But I'm sure he could explain that easily enough. This is *Snape* we're talking about. Pippin: > > The Egg and The Eye chapter in GoF creates further difficulties > along this line. Why didn't Snape tell Dumbledore about the Map > then? But explaining to Dumbledore about the Map would be > difficult without evidence. Snape's cried 'Wolf' far too many > times. Worse, if Snape's in high dudgeon about Moody rumbling > his office, he's in no position to confess that, er, he did the same > thing to Lupin. So Snape doesn't mention the Map at all. After all, > *he's* not the Defense Against the Dark Arts Master at the > school. Eloise: No, I know. But then Snape does emphasise how much Dumbledore trusts him. That's one of the reasons he's in high dudgeon about "Moody". But of course, Dumbledore trusts Remus. But that hasn't stopped Snape trying to explain his misgivings before, has it? Has he cried wolf? Yes, he's got things wrong, but usually he's been pretty near the truth, he's known when there has been something going on. And he really wants Dumbledore to believe badly of Lupin, doesn't he? How could he resist? "I went to give Lupin his potion. He'd already left, leaving his door open in his haste. I found this piece of Dark magic on his desk. Worse than that, he's been colluding with Potter, encouraging *him* to use it to put himself in danger." And, of course, he can get Harry into trouble at the same time. Pippin: > > JKR shows us how this works with Snape's interrogation of > Harry about the missing potions ingredients. If Snape and Harry > had pooled their information, they would have realized what was > happening, but Harry doesn't want his friends to be punished for > burgling Snape's office. So he doesn't tell Snape what he knows, > and Snape, in turn, doesn't mention that the theft of the > boomslang skin was recent. Like a real spy, Crouch/Moody > benefits because his enemies don't share their information > with each other. Eloise: Oh yes, it works very well, particularly for the author! ;-) Pippin: > > Of course we should also come up with an explanation of why > neither Lupin nor Sirius tells Dumbledore about the map. Could > it be that there *is* some Dark Magic in it? Not enough to be > dangerous to Harry, but enough so that they would feel that > what Dumbledore doesn't know won't hurt him? Eloise: Well, I suppose there's something in Lupin's own explanation that the creators of the map would have thought it very funny to lead Harry astray and that James would have expected no less of his son. Arrested development, perhaps, or a lingering of that foolhardy attitude that let the three gad around in that dangerous way with a werewolf in tow. Pippin: > > Or did they tell Dumbledore about the Map, and is Dumbledore's > "What map is this?" question misleading, because Dumbledore > doesn't want Harry thinking that Lupin and Sirius won't keep his > confidences? Eloise: More conspiracy, what? No, your explanations are more than reasonable, Pippin, but I still find it strange that if Dumbledore and Snape trust each other as much as we are led to believe, if Snape is truly concerned for Harry's safety, if Snape has ever been a spy on Dumbledore's behalf, then he couldn't find it within himself to tell Dumbledore about it. The man was a DE, yet Dumbledore accepts him. This is small fry compared to that. I mean, I could understand him keeping quiet about it *now*, because the consequences of his keeping quiet have been dire, a man's life lost, no less. But then? I still think it's out of character. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Dec 15 20:47:44 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 20:47:44 -0000 Subject: The Unforgivable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48360 Ing said of Voldemort in the graveyard:- >>> I don't think he wanted Harry to be weak. A weak Harry would not have made Voldie look good, because it was Harry who defeated him. Showing that he could defeat a strong and accomplished Harry who had just won the Tri-Wizard Tournament and could fight Imperio would be much more impressive. Surely Harry was weak when bound to a gravestone and unable to speak? He was injured from the Triwiard tournament, had terrible pains in his head (ok, Voldemort possibly didn't know about this), terrorised by the murder of Cedric and the reincarnation of Voldemort. Then, Voldemort tortures him. Only after he has thus further weakened Harry does he decide to "Duel". Even at this point, he begins before Harry has a chance to do/think of anything. True, Harry is untied and given his wand back, so he's not completely helpless. But weak, I certainly think he was. I actually think that Voldemort *did* want to show that Harry was weak and helpless. A mere child who defeated Voldemort by fluke. This is Volemort's failure. He seems so convinced that Harry escaped by an accident, he's so sure of his own omnipotence that he can risk freeing Harry. Unfortunately for him, his little game goes wrong. Harry may be weaker but he still manages to escape. In effect, he has defeated Voldemort yet again. Ali From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 21:15:13 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:15:13 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48361 Just a thought here......what if Madame Pomfrey were the next DADA teacher? Is there any canon that might support it? I suppose the thought that brought it on was when Poppy said (in PoA) that Harry should have some chocolate, and Harry said he'd already gotten some from Professor Lupin. "So we finally have a DADA teacher who knows his remedies." Obviously, she knows them, too. It just struck me that she might be a good DADA teacher. Of course, it would be a lot of responsibility to have that class and still oversee the hospital. Might she be part of the "old crowd" also? Anyway, just a thought. :) Alora From draco382 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 22:37:36 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382 ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 22:37:36 -0000 Subject: The Nature of Cowardice (was Fudge is not evil) In-Reply-To: <151.18e6981f.2b2cfe0e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48362 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > As for Fudge... well, my views are well known if not well understood. > As a *self-interested* coward who will not recognise the threat posed by > Voldemort, I view him, if nothing else, as the embodiment of the > institutionalised evil of a government which will not face up to the truth > and act. > > As Burke said (and as has been quoted here before), "It is necessary only for > the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph." > I just finished reading GOF again and am grinning from ear to ear after seeing this discussion. My general impression of Fudge is that he is indeed evil (not necessarily cowardly) and mostly likely working for a government whose main purpose is to cover up evidence and twist the truth. Being a one time huge X-Phile, I was reminded of the basic plot line in which a case would be nearly solved...until evidence/witnesses would be destroyed under the pretence of an "accident." Fudge is not the Minister for nothing...he is obviously well versed in official procedures, and its highly unlikely that he would dispose of such strong evidence (Barty Crouch Jr.) on accident. How Fudge got his position and what exactly he has been doing while in power is something yet to be discovered, but I'm not expecting his methods to be exactly ethical. So yeah, I think FIE :-) my two cents, draco382 From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 15 23:11:47 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:11:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's angst - will Lucius kill Draco - Hufflepuff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48363 Robin wrote: << Snape ... "full of angst, tortured" (per eillim in the other Snape thread) which is as I see how one becomes after having experienced earlier major tragedy or incident (perhaps the victim of sexual abuse as a minor - Karkaroff? Book 4) and SURVIVED! >> Whether sexual abuse or some other kind of abuse, it must have happened very young, well before he went to Hogwarts, because of Sirius's statement that first-year Snape already knew more curses than most seventh-years, and learning all those curses just has to be part of his dark bitter (do coffee-lovers love Snape?) personality. Chthonia wrote: << I certainly don't think Lucius would have *willingly* sacrificed Draco at the end of Book 4 -- he may not love or like his son but that doesn't mean he regards him as dispensable. >> Surely Lucius regards his son (who can be replaced, maybe even with the same mother) as MORE dispensable than the Dark Lord's favor. I adore S.A.C.R.I.F.I.C.I.A.L. F.E.R.R.E.T. Darla wrote: << But the over-lap between them has always made me wonder. Obviously Slytherin/Gryffindor have over-lapping qualities, as do Ravenclaw/Gryffindor and even Slytherin/Ravenclaw... But why does Hufflepuff seem to stand so alone from these three houses? >> Surely Cedric is an example of Hufflepuff and Gryffindor having over-lapping qualities. I view Hufflepuffs as very similar to Gryffindor except being a little more obedient to rules and a little less hungry for glory. From carmenharms at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 00:30:44 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 00:30:44 -0000 Subject: FILK: Full Moon Risin' - inspired by POA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48365 [To the tune of "Bad Moon Risin'" by Creedence Clearwater Revival] [SCENE: Sibyll Trelawney's classroom, empty except for the Professor herself, who has just finished a cup of tea. As she examines the tea leaves, suddenly her eyes glaze over and she sits bolt upright in her chair. Music begins to play, a distinctive jangling country-rock guitar backed up by a solid beat, and the Professor begins to sing:] I see a full moon risin', I see trouble on the way, I see a werewolf that's frightenin', I see a bad time today. Don't leave the shack tonight! Beware the werewolf's bite! There's a full moon on the rise. I fear dementors congregating, I fear they'll capture Sirius soon. I fear Wormtail escaping -- He'll be the instrument of ruin. Don't chain Pete to Lupin! You'd better be regroupin' -- There's a full moon on the rise. Hope you can conjure a patronus, Hope you can fly the hippogriff, Looks like two lives will be the bonus, Snape's going to have a screaming fit! Turn back time tonight, You're going to save two lives, There's a full moon on the rise. Don't be afraid tonight, You're bound to make things right, There's a full moon on the rise. [With a ringing guitar chord the music ends. Sibyll Trelawney's eyes open wide, she looks around as if to ask "Did something just happen?" Then she settles back in her chair and resumes her examination of the tea leaves, which look a little different than they did a few minutes ago.] --snazzzybird, who always loved Creedence, and kind of likes Trelawney too From debmclain at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 02:27:16 2002 From: debmclain at yahoo.com (Debbie McLain ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 02:27:16 -0000 Subject: The Nature of Cowardice (was Fudge is not evil) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48366 eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > > As for Fudge... well, my views are well known if not well > understood. > > As a *self-interested* coward who will not recognise the threat > posed by > > Voldemort, I view him, if nothing else, as the embodiment of the > > institutionalised evil of a government which will not face up to > the truth and act. > > As Burke said (and as has been quoted here before), "It is > necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph." wrote: > My general > impression of Fudge is that he is indeed evil (not necessarily > cowardly) and mostly likely working for a government whose main > purpose is to cover up evidence and twist the truth. Fudge is not the > Minister for nothing...he is obviously well versed in official > procedures, and its highly unlikely that he would dispose of such > strong evidence (Barty Crouch Jr.) on accident. > How Fudge got his position and what exactly he has been doing while > in power is something yet to be discovered, but I'm not expecting > his methods to be exactly ethical. > So yeah, I think FIE :-) Once again I wrote a posting about this - and Yahoo ate it. So here I will try again. :-) I have believed for a long time that Fudge is Evil. He is portrayed as a hapless, half-wit that needs Dumbledore's help everyday (remember PS/SS and the owls he send DD?). How did someone like that become Minister of Magic? How in the world did Ludo Bagman get into the MOM? I think they are in league with each other and are supporters of Voldemort. Fudge and Ludo's jobs are to create misinformation and confusion in the governing system. I must admit Eloise's remark about Fudge being a social comment about the government in general held quite a bit of interest for me. I could see JK making that her point. But again - I think there is a lot more going on than just that. I agree with draco382, we will find out more as the story continues... -Debbie From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 16 02:50:38 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 02:50:38 -0000 Subject: FILK: Thomas Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48367 As I continue to shamelessly cannibalize the classic musicals for my nefarious purposes... Thomas Riddle To the tune of "Don Quixote" from "Man of La Mancha" SCENE: Having discovered the Chamber of Secrets, young Tom Riddle prepares to begin his reign of terror. TOM RIDDLE: Fear me now, All you weaklings and Muggleborn fools, For the time of my triumph's at hand; As my ancestor's curse I unleash on this school To follow my vengeful command! I am I, Thomas Riddle, The Dark Lord of Britain, All wizards shall tremble and fear! I'm seizing the power And taking the first steps To launch my illustrious career! I launch my illustrious career; Wizards should tremble and fear! BASILISK I'm the basilisk! Yes I'm the basilisk! I kill when my Master gives the word. Through the pipes I will slither, I will kill for my Lord! TOM RIDDLE I am I, Thomas Riddle, The Dark Lord of Britain, It's time now to settle the score! All Muggles and Mudbloods Shall suffer my vengeance, I go forth as Lort Voldemort! Now that I'm Lord Voldemort, It's time to settle the score! BASILISK I'm the basilisk! Yes I'm the basilisk! I kill when my Master gives the word. Through the pipes I will slither, I will kill for my Lord! TOM RIDDLE Now that I'm Lord Voldemort, It's time to settle the score! Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Lynx412 at aol.com Mon Dec 16 03:06:42 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 22:06:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and His Mom (formerly "Evil and Stuff") Message-ID: <11d.1bc8b659.2b2e9d42@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48368 In a message dated 12/15/02 1:15:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, twileen at yahoo.com writes: > Tom's mother died from weakness, her death probably had a lot to do with the > pregnancy and birth. And when she died he had to grow up in a *muggle* > institution; a place that he hated. > > We know that he blames his father, and he makes speaches about his poor > abandoned mother. But he could just be using her for dynamics, to make what > he says more powerful. Chances are he holds a lot of hate for her as well. > She was too weak to be a mother to him. She failed were muggle borns like > Lily Potter could easily have succeeded, had he not intervened. I just thought of something. How does he know this? She died soon after he was born, only living long enough to name him-at least according to him. So, how does he know all this stuff? Who told him? How did he know he was the last descendent of Slytherin? I hope this is covered in some of the future books. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 16 03:36:03 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 03:36:03 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and His Mom (formerly "Evil and Stuff") In-Reply-To: <11d.1bc8b659.2b2e9d42@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cheryl Lynx412 at a... wrote: > I just thought of something. How does he know this? She died soon > after he was born, only living long enough to name him-at least > according to him. So, how does he know all this stuff? Who told > him? How did he know he was the last descendent of Slytherin? I > hope this is covered in some of the future books. My theory: at first he lived with his late mother's parents and they told him all that stuff. Then they died with no wizarding relatives or neighbors, and the Muggle neighbors sent him to the Muggle orphanage. I think they may have been killed by young Tommy's unconscious magic when he was having an infantile temper tantrum -- I suppose he already had very strong magic, even before he knew how to use it. I also think that not everything he was told by his grandparents was necessarily true. I personally think that his parents were never married and his father never knew that his mother was a witch. He didn't break up with her because he found out that she was a witch, he broke up with her because she wanted him to marry her just because she got pregnant. The grandparents were Victorians and made up that other story instead of telling him he was illegitimate. I like to think that Voldemort's whole anti-Muggle crusade was based on a wrong belief and he REALLY should have been crusading against premarital sex. From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 04:13:44 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:13:44 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pickle_jimmy " > > > I'm not saying that Poppy wouldn't make a good DADA teacher -- I've > never seen a "Job and Person Specification" for the position :-) -- > But I wouldn't have thought the fact of her knowing the chocolate > remedy quite enough to qualify her. She is employed as the > Doctor/Nurse/Magical-Medical-Person of Hogwarts, IMO she should know > the remedy for dementor attack (and for all medical problems) - I > always looked at the statement as her comparison between the > ineptness of Lockhart and the skill of Lupin. Yes, I agree about the comparison, I have just always thought that there is more to everyone at Hogwarts than meets the eye. You brought up the "job specification" thing. What do the teachers have as credentials? I mean, there's not a wizard college, that I am aware of. ;) That's another thing that I mull over quite a bit. How do you GET your teaching position in the first place? I'm just mulling over what are probably inane things on a slow Sunday night.... Alora From jodel at aol.com Mon Dec 16 04:18:38 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:18:38 EST Subject: Voldemort and his Mom Message-ID: <6b.491dcc5.2b2eae1e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48371 Cheryl asks; >>I just thought of something. How does he know this? She died soon after he was born, only living long enough to name him-at least according to him. So, how does he know all this stuff? Who told him? How did he know he was the last descendent of Slytherin?<< Bingo. That IS the $64,000 question. Or one of them. because he sure the hell didn't get that information from the orphanage! Either; Somebody with reason to take an interest in the Heir of Slytherin, even if the boy was a half-blood, "got" to him when he showed up at Hogwarts. (Enter the "Professor Grendlwald" theory.) Or; he made it up himself as a classic adolescent wish fulfilment/cuckoo tale (i.e., "my parents aren't my *real* parents. *I'm* royalty!") and ended up convincing himself that it was true. That Dumbledore concedes that his mother had indeed been the last known decendent of Salizar Slytherin suggests that the first is the more likely. Tom Riddle may hve been a ticking time-bomb by the time he hit Hogwarts, but he was still human, and, more to the point, he was a Muggle-raised child with *no* knowlege of the WW. To have become the monster-in-training he had become by the age of 16, he must have had some kind of help. -JOdel From ingachristsuperstar at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 05:08:39 2002 From: ingachristsuperstar at yahoo.com (ingachristsuperstar ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 05:08:39 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and his Mom In-Reply-To: <6b.491dcc5.2b2eae1e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jodel at a... wrote: > Cheryl asks: > > >>I just thought of something. How does he know this? She died soon after he > was born, only living long enough to name him-at least according to him. So, > how does he know all this stuff? Who told him? How did he know he was the > last descendent of Slytherin?<< > -JOdel: > Bingo. That IS the $64,000 question. Or one of them. because he sure the hell > didn't get that information from the orphanage! > > Either; Somebody with reason to take an interest in the Heir of Slytherin, > even if the boy was a half-blood, "got" to him when he showed up at Hogwarts. > (Enter the "Professor Grendlwald" theory.) Or; he made it up himself as a > classic adolescent wish fulfilment/cuckoo tale (i.e., "my parents aren't my > *real* parents. *I'm* royalty!") and ended up convincing himself that it was > true. That Dumbledore concedes that his mother had indeed been the last known > decendent of Salizar Slytherin suggests that the first is the more likely. > There is another possibility too. He knew his maternal grandfather's name and presumably his mother's. He might have researched his family and found out the connection to Slytherin himself. The info may have been obscure, but maybe not impossible to discover. I'm sure a muggle-raised but wizard-born kid would be curious about his wizard heritage. Hmm, kind of makes you wonder about the lack of questions from a certain _other_ wizard-born, muggle-raised kid that we all know and love. -Ing From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 16 05:36:50 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 05:36:50 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey AND EDUCATION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora " > Yes, I agree about the comparison, I have just always thought that > there is more to everyone at Hogwarts than meets the eye. You > brought up the "job specification" thing. What do the teachers > have as credentials? I mean, there's not a wizard college, that I > am aware of. ;) JKR has stated in interviews that there is NO UNIVERSITY FOR WIZARDS. Mike (Aberforth's Goat) provided this tool for searching JKR interviews: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ I used it to find the following: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm Q: Do you think that you will write about Harry after he graduates from Hogwarts? Isn't there a University of Wizardry? JKR: No, there's no University for Wizards. At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book. I believe that even tho' they have no universities, they have some vocational schools (vocational colleges) and some Guilds which have programs of apprenticeship. I went on about it at some length in the following posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38034 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33882 > That's another thing that I mull over quite a bit. How do you GET > your teaching position in the first place? I SUPPOSE that the first step is to APPLY for the position. Either Dumbledore reads all the letters of application or he lets McGonagall weed out the worst ones. He interviews the applicants who seem to be possibly qualified, based on their letters or on knowing them or on knowing their reputations; the wizarding world is a small place, probably the vast majority of applicants will Dumbledore's former pupils. After the interviews, Dumbledore chooses the one who seems to be best at teaching and know the material well enough. In some cases, Dumbledore's judgement of the candidate's knowledge can be influenced by credentials issued by a Guild. In other cases, he must go on letters of recommendation and how much knowledge the candidate showed during the interview. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 07:29:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:29:14 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey AND EDUCATION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora " > > > Yes, I agree about the comparison, I have just always thought that > > there is more to everyone at Hogwarts than meets the eye. You > > brought up the "job specification" thing. What do the teachers > > have as credentials? I mean, there's not a wizard college, that I > > am aware of. ;) >Catlady: > > JKR has stated in interviews that there is NO UNIVERSITY FOR > WIZARDS. ...edite.... > > I believe that even tho' they have no universities, they have > some vocational schools (vocational colleges) and some Guilds > which have programs of apprenticeship. > > > That's another thing that I mull over quite a bit. How do you GET > > your teaching position in the first place? > >CatLady bboy_mn replies: I like your concept of Guilds. It runs very close to my belief in after Hogwarts education. I think there definitely is recognised academic achievement after Hogwarts but it is handled by the private sector. Accreditation is give by review of the Academic commitees of private organization or possibly even government associated organizations or as you suggested Guilds. For example, the International Confederation of Wizards may have an Academic Review Commitee. Most of the purely academic work is done in independant study, as opposed to classroom study. From this independant study, you submit your work to the commitee in a variety of ways such as lectures, oral arguments, debates, demonstrations, research documentation, publishing academic papers, etc.... In all likelihood, it is some combination of all of these, just as it would be at a university. Once you have demonstated significant research and skill in a certain area of study, and shown sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge, you are awarded a Professoriate which entitles you to be called Professor. More advanced study awards you a Doctorate which allows you to use the title Doctor. In reality, most colleges are private organizations and their Degrees are really worth nothing more than the reputation of the school. There may be many universities that give a better education than Harvard, but it is the reputation of Harvard and nothing more, that backs up and give prestige to a Harvard degree. The point I'm making is that even in the muggle world, as I speculate it is in the wizard world, the quality and prestige of you academic title is worth no more that the reputation of the wizarding body (academic commitee, Guild, etc...) that awarded it to you. So totally private (out of school) accreditation is not that far fetched. Just adding a few of my own thoughts. But I do like the guild concept. Not only do you have a source of study and training, but you have some organization to review your work and certify that it meet certain standards. Make perfect sense to me. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Dec 16 08:16:09 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 03:16:09 EST Subject: TBAY: The Order of the Flying Hedgehog: open for business again. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48375 Author's note: The lengthy refurbishment of the Castle, Diana's sojourn at George's and Eloise's moonlighting in the archives of HPfGU mean that some of the responses in this post are *very* out of date (I started this a long time ago) and one or two of the references are to rather ancient threads. **************************************** Diana shimmered through the throng gathered in the candle lit Great Hall of her castle, just conscious of the odour of fresh emulsion paint beneath the scents of candle smoke and incense. She nodded to her guests, spoke to one or two, exchanged her empty champagne flute for a fresh one from the tray carried by a liveried flunky. 'Eloise!' she shouted above the hubbub. 'Over here! Isn't it *wonderful*?' 'Yes, Diana, it's truly spectacular,' replied Eloise, the merest hint of forbearance in her voice, as she took in in the full effect of the huge gothic fireplace, the high cornices, the terracotta figures arrayed in ornamental niches around the walls. It's amazing how much you achieved whilst I was away. But why......' her eyes followed the gaze of Diana's guests, many of whom were standing with their necks craned, staring at the ceiling and pointing, 'Coats of arms on the ceiling? Whose are they?' 'Everybody in Theory Bay's,' she replied, a gleam of triumph in her eye. 'Look. They *love* it don't they?' 'Diana, you can't grant arms, you know.' 'It's my castle and I can if I want to.' Eloise knew argument was futile. 'Okay. I give in. I take it that's yours in the middle?' she said, indicating the largest shield which bore a silver crescent moon on a deep blue background spangled with bats. 'What's with the bats?' 'I am a *Snapetheory*, you know,' Diana withered. 'Yes but I thought we were agreed that Snape *isn't* a vampire?' 'Of course he's not. It's just, well, imagery in keeping with JKR's original. You know, flapping around like an oversized bat and all that. Anyway, I *like* bats,' she countered with a final and unarguable logic. 'Well, where's mine then?' 'Yours? Oh, now let me see...I think it's somewhere over there,' she said, vaguely indicating the dimmest corner of the ceiling. Eloise searched amongst a few of the many images: a sphinx armed with a paddle; a bleeding heart; two golden braids, knotted around a censor on a purple ground; a cute little moose-like creature draped in bloody feather boas and what looked strangely like a cracked wheat salad surmounted by crossed lollipops before finding the shield she was looking for: three winged hegehogs on an azure field. 'Very nice, but those are the arms of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. Where are mine?' 'Same thing, isn't it?' said Diana. 'No, it's not,' retorted Eloise, 'I do have some identity of my own, you know,' she started, but Diana's attention had wandered. She'd seen someone new. 'Let me introduce you to Animagi_Raven,' she said. Been waiting for months, you know. I think you two might just have something in common.' Eloise looked curious. 'Fudge' said Diana. 'Fudge?' 'Yes, Fudge,' said the stranger and continued, '<> When Sirius was captured he probably had a wand. This is a good bet since he and Peter were facing off. Sirius claims that he was not given a trial before being sent to Azkaban. He was definitely not defending his innocence but there was another piece of evidence that could have helped him *if there had been a trial* - his wand. <>Therefore the spell would have been on Peter's wand and not on Sirius's wand. If a person in the MoM wanted Sirius locked away (cough*Fudge*cough) and knew that the wand would exonerate him, then there would be no point to a trial. Is this a point for Ever-So-Evil!Fudge as opposed to just Apathetic!Fudge? <>' 'Ah-ha!' shouted Eloise in glee, dancing on her toes in excitement, before donning the deerstalker and cape which she shares with Dicentra and climbing onto her personal soapbox. 'A person after my own heart! 'This is indeed part of the foundation of the Cornelius Fudge Is Ever-So Evil theory which Dicentra and I developed back in February/March. The thread starts with message #35452 (under a completely different title). Dicentra gave the theory a wonderful acronym, which I never quite got the hang of, but FIE (Fudge Is Evil!) will do. Have a look in Inish Alley (the other acronym also begins with F). 'In brief, I argued that Peter's escape had every sign of being planned, but also of being a plan that was incredibly likely to go wrong. It was far more reliable with the help of an accomplice, especially an accomplice within the MOM. Now I think that Fudge was too junior at the time to have any say in whether or not there was a trial, but he was one of the first on the scene after the 'explosion' and Pettigrew's disappearance. He could have swapped Sirius' wand for Pettigrew's, thus producing the 'guilty' wand as evidence. The fact that it wasn't Sirius' wand is no impediment: he only needed to witness that he had found it in Sirius' possession. There has to be some reason why Pettigrew doesn't have a wand, doesn't there? Surely he would have taken it with him? (We have evidence that clothes and personal possessions transform with an animagus.) 'As you say, Sirius never tries to exonerate himself. I suggest that the reason is that he knows that he has been framed and that it is futile. 'So Fudge *is* Ever-So Evil, then?' asked Animagi_Raven. 'Sorry, but I couldn't help overhearing,' Eloise looked round. 'I'm Draco, by the way.' Eloise started at the name, but listened politely as Draco continued, 'I just finished reading GOF again and am grinning from ear to ear after seeing this discussion. My general impression of Fudge is that he is indeed evil (not necessarily cowardly) and mostly likely working for a government whose main purpose is to cover up evidence and twist the truth. Being a one time huge X-Phile, I was reminded of the basic plot line in which a case would be nearly solved...until evidence/witnesses would be destroyed under the pretence of an "accident." Fudge is not the Minister for nothing...he is obviously well versed in official procedures, and its highly unlikely that he would dispose of such strong evidence (Barty Crouch Jr.) on accident. How Fudge got his position and what exactly he has been doing while in power is something yet to be discovered, but I'm not expecting his methods to be exactly ethical. So yeah, I think FIE :-)' At this point another guest, Debbie, joined in, 'I have believed for a long time that Fudge is Evil. He is portrayed as a hapless, half-wit that needs Dumbledore's help everyday (remember PS/SS and the owls he send DD?). How did someone like that become Minister of Magic? How in the world did Ludo Bagman get into the MOM? I think they are in league with each other and are supporters of Voldemort. Fudge and Ludo's jobs are to create misinformation and confusion in the governing system. 'I must admit Eloise's remark about Fudge being a social comment about the government in general held quite a bit of interest for me. I could see JK making that her point. But again - I think there is a lot more going on than just that. I agree with draco382, we will find out more as the story continues...' 'Yes', said Eloise, well I did say that my position isn't really understood. Well, to be honest, I suppose I want to have my cake and eat it. Let's see if I can explain. 'Well, I think that people were in Voldemort's employ, directly or indirectly for many reasons. Fudge doesn't have to *have* been a fully paid up DE (although he may have been), but he may have made a foolish mistake, or a decision based on short-term self-interest (and we know Voldemort's network had contacts within the MOM) which now (Book 4 and beyond) he needs to cover up. He can represent evil, either through intent, or omission or allowing himself to be corrupted and failing to stand up for right or admit to past errors. So yes, as far as I'm concerned Fudge and Evil definitely go together. I can make out a nice case for his being truly evil (and have done so), but even if he isn't or hasn't been wittingly involved in wrong doing, then he still represents an institutionalisd evil. 'Now, do you realise that we have an organisation just for people like you?' Eloise began pulling pieces of parchment and quills and binding magical contracts out of the pockets of her robes, but was interrupted by a strange white figure wearing a crown, whose clothes were all adrift. 'There'll be an owl soon,' said the stranger. 'How do you know?' 'I remember it distinctly.' 'But how can you if it's not happened yet?' 'It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,' the woman retorted. Eloise looked at Diana. 'Who *is* she?' 'Her? Oh, she's the White Queen. She's always dashing in here to tell me about something that hasn't happened yet. Haven't you seen the chess set?' 'Chess set?' 'Yes. Didn't I tell you? I met this chap when I was helping George out down at the bar. Big chap he was. Rather off-putting, really, but he offered to buy me a drink.....' 'Yes?' 'And I got talking about my plans for the castle and he just mentioned that he knew of this chess set that was going spare. No longer needed, he said, and I thought it would be ideal for the terrace.......' 'You have a life-sized transfigured chess set on the terrace?' 'Yes! It's wonderful! They get quite... erm, *animated* at times and since all the magic round here means I can't get the WWF on the telly....' 'Oh yes,' interrupted the White Queen, 'I remember it very well. The owl will bear messages stating that Ludo Bagman is Ever So Evil. It's a very slow owl, by the way. Set out weeks ago' 'Oh. It's for you then,' said Diana in a disappointed tone. The exhausted owl duly arrived and placed a pile of parchments in Eloise's hand. They were messages from PennyR, Laura, Strix, Ashfae and Theresnothingtoit, all pointing to Ludo Bagman, if not being a fully paid up DE, possibly even the or a faithful servant of the Dark Lord at least being a highly suspicious character. Eloise smiled, as she remembered the days long ago when Evil!Bagman had been but a glimmer in Cindy's eye and how she came to found The Order of the Flying Hedgehog. Business was picking up again. Time to tidy up her long abandoned office and send out new membership forms, she thought. Her attention was drawn to a kerfuffle on the other side of the room. Cindy was being frog-marched from the hall by two playing cards. 'I warned her about that Paddle,' said Diana, regretfully, 'I told her that under the laws which operate here, that counts as carrying an offensive weapon, but would she listen? Last week it was Occam and that dratted razor of his. I'd better go and see what I can do,' she added more urgently, as a cry of 'Off with her head!' went up from the croquet lawn. 'What was that acronym again?' asked Eloise. 'C.H.O.P.? It wasn't *Cindy's* Head On a Plate, was it? Now that *would* Bang.' ~Eloise Who knows that Cindy realises that she doesn't really wish to see her decapitated, but would just like to make that clear to everyone else! And is aware of omitting several other ESE threads that have come up since her last visit to the Castle, notably regarding McGonagall and Cho Chang. For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From wynnde1 at aol.com Mon Dec 16 10:47:30 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 05:47:30 EST Subject: A motive for Sirius (finally!) Message-ID: <3c.291d6650.2b2f0942@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48376 Pippin wrote: >I believe I have come up with a motive for The Prank that doesn't >make Sirius look like a psycho but doesn't require Snape to >have done anything worse (in those days) than Sirius says he >did. >If Lupin was on the verge of suicide, could Sirius have seen The Prank as the only >way to save his friend? Even if Snape died and Lupin was held responsible, at least >Snape would have been paid back, and what could anyone do to Lupin that was >worse than what he planned to do to himself? I think that his attempt at murder did >haunt Sirius in Azkaban, and he made up a defense for it: Snape was spying, >Lupin wouldn't have wanted to die if Snape hadn't been spying on him, Sirius *had* >to do something to save his friend, it would have served Snape right if he *had* >died, and so forth. >The alternative explanation, simple teenage thoughtlessness, >doesn't seem quite convincing to me as a reason for the adult >Sirius to cling to the belief that Snape had it coming. Oh, my, Pippin - and you are hoping for a red robe for this? I'm still pretty new here, but I thought the red robes were for Sirius Apologists - and you've got him premeditating murder? (Dicentra, where are you?) Wow. I thought I was hard on Sirius just because I won't be able to really like him until I'm convinced that he feels true remorse. But even I don't have him planning the prank as a deliberate attempt to kill (or worse) Severus. YOW! It seems to me that *if* your scenario is accurate, then we need to really watch Sirius. You are right - your theory doesn't make him sound like a psycho, it makes him sound Evil. No matter how much snooping Snape was doing, that would by no means justify murdering him - even if Lupin *was* suicidal because of it. And yes, I realise we are talking about the mentality of a teenage boy. However, while I don't expect particularly deep or complex views of morality from ~15-year-olds, I do expect someone of that age to understand that murder is *wrong*. Particularly of the pre-meditated variety. If Sirius was planning send Snape in after Lupin, well aware that Snape's death was a distinct possiblity (and a good thing for Lupin, as well), well, that's just plain Evil (IMO). And, it also makes me question the real level of their friendship. Lupin, as we've seen him in canon, strikes me as the sort who would *never* want someone to be hurt at his (Lupin's) expense. And for Sirius to contemplate such a thing seems really twisted. Did he really think Lupin would appreciate being set up to murder a fellow student, even if he did *benefit* from it in some way? It seems to me that Sirius (if a normal, well-adjusted sort of person) would have difficulty justifying this course of action from any angle. So maybe it does make him look like a psycho, or, as I suggested earlier, Ever So Evil! Then, there's the possiblity that *Lupin* was in on the plan, as well, which would not only give a bit more weight to the LYCANTHROPE theory, but it would also open the door for any number of Evil!Marauder conspiracy theories, wouldn't it? Oh, I hope you're wrong about this. I still prefer to believe that Sirius told Snape how to get past the willow in a momentary fit of anger/lapse of judgement. I don't actually want the poor guy to be really Evil. :-) Wendy (Who was very excited to read her wee sister's first *real* post on the list last night about Snape and Javert - :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Dec 16 14:28:26 2002 From: MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM (mitchbailey82 ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:28:26 -0000 Subject: Madame Pomfrey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora " wrote: > Just a thought here......what if Madame Pomfrey were the next DADA > teacher? Is there any canon that might support it? I suppose the > thought that brought it on was when Poppy said (in PoA) that Harry > should have some chocolate, and Harry said he'd already gotten some > from Professor Lupin. "So we finally have a DADA teacher who knows > his remedies." Obviously, she knows them, too. It just struck me > that she might be a good DADA teacher. Of course, it would be a lot > of responsibility to have that class and still oversee the > hospital. Might she be part of the "old crowd" also? Anyway, just > a thought. :) > > Alora I like this, (personally I get tired of all the Arabella Fig theories ? this seems too obvious to me ? but maybe that's because of all the discussion of it), she has experience of Dark creatures in teenage Lupin (it was her responsibility to take him to the willow to transform). She definitely knows the cures for injuries/ illness caused by dark creatures and curses, ie the dementors and chocolate and the girl who cursed her nose off. She can tell the difference between a good dada and a bad dada as is shown by her different reactions to Lupin and Lockhart. She would probably make a good DADA but I would prefer to see her teaching medical magic to the pupils ? I reckon that she would be good at this and also with the amount of times that Harry has found himself in the hospital wing he could probably use with learning a bit of healative magic ;-) Michelle From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Dec 16 15:17:48 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:17:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Map (was: Re: Thoughts on PoA Snape & What Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48378 Eloise wrote: > It also highlights what I regard as one of the more obvious of JKR's > plot manipulations. > I cannot, for the life of me work out why Snape didn't tell > Dumbledore about the Map. Well, one possibility is that Snape fears that Dumbledore would legitimise Harry's possession of the map. He's passed him an invisibility cloak and let him off broken rules before. He may also mistakenly believe that Dumbledore already knows as he was close to James and Sirius. He has to balance the benefit of Dumbledore generally knowing what's going on against the risk that a policy for dealing with Harry that he believes is wrong being further entrenched. David From Resqgal911 at msn.com Mon Dec 16 14:36:39 2002 From: Resqgal911 at msn.com (Tammy Bianchi) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:36:39 -0500 Subject: Hufflepuff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48379 Darla wrote: << But the over-lap between them has always made me wonder. Obviously > Catlady Says: No: HPFGUIDX 48380 Oh well, I held off for as long as I could... Lockhart the Dark Arts Teacher (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer) We know Quirrel who was on the side of Voldemort Lupin the werewolf and Moody the Auror But I'm sure you know Who was the most smarmiest fellow Lockhart the Dark Arts teacher (teacher) Reputation built on lies (what a fibber) Though he wrote so many books (books) All his deeds were plagiarized (what a fibber) All of the other teachers (teachers) Really hated Lockhart's guts (Snape, especially) So dense was this fop, Lockhart (Lockhart) He would think he was hot stuff (how ridiculous) When a student was taken Snape to Lockhart said; (get him, Snape) "If you think you are so great Why not help Ginny escape?" Then Lockhart showed his true colors (chicken) Then from there he tried to flee (fleeeee!) Lockhart the Dark Arts teacher (teacher) He was very cowardly -Gail B...Happy Holidays everybody! _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 16:48:48 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:48:48 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore Was Not Told About the Map (WAS: Snape and the Map) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48381 Pippin wrote: > Of course we should also come up with an explanation of why > neither Lupin nor Sirius tells Dumbledore about the map. Could > it be that there *is* some Dark Magic in it? Not enough to be > dangerous to Harry, but enough so that they would feel that > what Dumbledore doesn't know won't hurt him? > > Or did they tell Dumbledore about the Map, and is Dumbledore's > "What map is this?" question misleading, because Dumbledore > doesn't want Harry thinking that Lupin and Sirius won't keep his > confidences? Now me: I don't believe that Dumbledore was told about the Map. When he's questioning Crouch Jr. under the Veritaserum (Ch. 35, GoF), and Crouch Jr. gets to the part about the Map, Dumbledore "quickly" asks about the Map, suggesting genuine surprise at this revelation. I also think that, given the security concerns surrounding the Triwizard Tournament, and after the display of the Dark Mark at the QWC, if Dumbledore did know about the Map, he would have asked Harry to give it to him. So, assuming this is correct, why then didn't Lupin or Sirius tell Dumbledore about the Map? When Lupin gives the Map back to Harry (Ch. 22, PoA), he tells Harry "It's no use to me, and I daresay you, Ron and Hermione will find uses for it." This suggests to me one of two possibilities: (1) Lupin thinks it will be a way for HRH to have some fun; or (2) Lupin thinks HRH will be able to use the Map in the upcoming fight against Voldemort. The first possibility makes more sense in terms of not telling Dumbledore about the Map, for if Lupin thought the Map would be helpful in the fight against Voldemort, presumably he would have given the Map to Dumbledore instead (or at least told him of its existence). While not telling Dumbledore about the Map would allow HRH to have some fun using it to explore the hidden passageways of Hogwarts. Of course, this raises another interesting question: Where is the Map now? Did Dumbledore retrieve it from Crouch Jr.? Somehow, I think that Map's going to pop up again in OoP... ~Phyllis From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 17:49:55 2002 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (smiller_92407 ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:49:55 -0000 Subject: What was V-mort's goal? (was: There is only power) In-Reply-To: <12125342106.20021215193347@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48382 In his first power grab, was his goal to start with domination over Britain, or did he start with world domination as his first step? The cause of my puzzlement is the inclusion of Karkaroff in the Death Eaters. Either he happened to be in Britain during the first recruiting round, or V-M had already expanded. What does everyone think? ~ Constance Vigilance ~ From suzchiles at pobox.com Mon Dec 16 18:16:56 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:16:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What was V-mort's goal? (was: There is only power) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48383 I've always had the belief that Karkaroff was a student at Hogwart's as Voldemort was first rising to power and that Karkaroff, who I would bet was in Slytherin, eagerly embraced Voldemort. Alas, I can't cite any canon to support this belief. Suzanne > -----Original Message----- > From: smiller_92407 > In his first power grab, was his goal to start with domination over > Britain, or did he start with world domination as his first step? The > cause of my puzzlement is the inclusion of Karkaroff in the Death > Eaters. Either he happened to be in Britain during the first > recruiting round, or V-M had already expanded. What does everyone > think? > > ~ Constance Vigilance ~ From dorigen at hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 18:42:22 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:42:22 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What was V-mort's goal? (was: There is only power) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48384 suzchiles at pobox.com said: >I've always had the belief that Karkaroff was a student at Hogwart's as >Voldemort was first rising to power and that Karkaroff, who I would bet was >in Slytherin, eagerly embraced Voldemort. Alas, I can't cite any canon to >support this belief. > It's just a theory, but: 1) We know that Albania is a place where Voldemort and his minions have hidden at least twice. 2) We have reason to believe that Durmstrang is somewhere cold, mountainous, and secluded (Hermione's deduction from the fur cloaks and Krum's description of the landscape there). Could Durmstrang be in Albania or someplace near it? This would explain the emphasis on the Dark Arts, Voldemort's influence on Karkaroff, and possibly another reason why Lucius Malfoy wanted to send Draco there. Maybe Voldemort was hoping to build a stronghold for himself, with Karkaroff's help, similar to the one Dumbledore has at Hogwarts. For all we know, when the Durmstrang students get back home, Karkaroff will be waiting there for them, pretending nothing much has happened ... Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 18:53:52 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:53:52 -0000 Subject: What was V-mort's goal? (was: There is only power) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48385 Constance Vigilance wrote: > In his first power grab, was his goal to start with domination over > Britain, or did he start with world domination as his first step? > The cause of my puzzlement is the inclusion of Karkaroff in the > Death Eaters. Either he happened to be in Britain during the first > recruiting round, or V-M had already expanded. What does everyone > think? Now me: There's not much in the books on this, but in an October 2000 Scholastic interview, JKR was asked: "How does the Dark Lord affect American wizards and witches?" and she responded: "He affects everyone, but his plan is European domination first." see: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm As for Karkaroff, Dumbledore tells Harry and the Weasleys at the end of CoS that after leaving Hogwarts, Tom Riddle "disappeared... travelled far and wide...consorted with the very worst of our kind" (Ch. 18). So Riddle could have met up with Karkaroff (perhaps one of the worst of wizard-kind?) on his travels. ~Phyllis From bobafett at harbornet.com Mon Dec 16 19:01:48 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:01:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hufflepuff References: Message-ID: <001401c2a535$986b1700$58edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48386 Darla wrote: << But the over-lap between them has always made me wonder. Obviously > Catlady Says: Message-ID: <002f01c2a536$4381eb00$58edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48387 smiller said: In his first power grab, was his goal to start with domination over Britain, or did he start with world domination as his first step? The cause of my puzzlement is the inclusion of Karkaroff in the Death Eaters. Either he happened to be in Britain during the first recruiting round, or V-M had already expanded. What does everyone think? ~ Constance Vigilance ~ me: Voldemort's ultimate goal, IMHO, is the gain of ultimate power, destroying all who get in his way or sometimes just to amuse himself, I'm sure. People like him are mad to start with: they want to be immortal and rule the world and beyond. BoBaFeTT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From probono at rapidnet.com Mon Dec 16 19:50:36 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (probonoprobono ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:50:36 -0000 Subject: What was V-mort's goal? (was: There is only power) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > It's just a theory, but: > > 1) We know that Albania is a place where Voldemort and his minions have > hidden at least twice. > > 2) We have reason to believe that Durmstrang is somewhere cold, mountainous, > and secluded (Hermione's deduction from the fur cloaks and Krum's > description of the landscape there). > > Could Durmstrang be in Albania or someplace near it? This would explain the > emphasis on the Dark Arts, Voldemort's influence on Karkaroff, and possibly > another reason why Lucius Malfoy wanted to send Draco there. > > Maybe Voldemort was hoping to build a stronghold for himself, with > Karkaroff's help, similar to the one Dumbledore has at Hogwarts. For all we > know, when the Durmstrang students get back home, Karkaroff will be waiting > there for them, pretending nothing much has happened ... Now Me: I speculated for some time that Durmstrang was located somewhere in the Balkan States (Albania, Bulgaria, etc.), but there is a comment by Viktor Krum that made me rethink. He mentioned that in the summer there was no nighttime (or was it the other way around? Sorry, don't have the books handy). At any rate, I don't think the Balkans are far north enough to experience the arctic seasons. My geography skills are lacking though, I could be wrong. :D And Karkaroff...I think he may originally be from that area, but he doesn't appear to have an accent. Leads me to believe he was at least raised in Britian. -Tanya From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Dec 16 20:04:34 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:04:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and the Map (was: Re: Thoughts on PoA Snape & What ... Message-ID: <122.1c0b4e42.2b2f8bd2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48389 David: > Eloise: > > I cannot, for the life of me work out why Snape didn't tell > > Dumbledore about the Map. > > Well, one possibility is that Snape fears that Dumbledore would > legitimise Harry's possession of the map. He's passed him an > invisibility cloak and let him off broken rules before. > > He may also mistakenly believe that Dumbledore already knows as he > was close to James and Sirius. > > He has to balance the benefit of Dumbledore generally knowing what's > going on against the risk that a policy for dealing with Harry that > he believes is wrong being further entrenched. > That's the best explanation that I've heard. However, it is not unknown for Snape to take matters into his own hands when he thinks Dumbledore is wrong (he does this by running after Lupin and again by forcing his resignation) and if he *did* think that Dumbledore knew, but that it was a mistake to let Harry have the Map, then again, I would have expected him to have used the opportunity of finding it in Lupin's office to confiscate it. He didn't trust Lupin. In 'Snape's Grudge' there is implication that he might have thought that Lupin himself had given the map to Harry (presumably with nefarious intent). I suspect that, as has already been speculated (was it by you, Pippin?) he had a pretty good idea of just who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs were, though not yet of the significance of the names. He had, as far as he knew, caught Lupin in the act of aiding and abetting Sirius. He still apparently believed in Lupin's guilt after the Shrieking Shack episode, so I am surprised that concern that Dumbledore was going to condone Harry using what he thought was a piece of Dark Magic outweighed his ability to present material evidence that Lupin was both up to no good and involving Harry to boot. Or that he didn't acquire the Map for personal use! It would be right up his street, really, wouldn't it? On reflection, I don't think he'd be too concerned about handling a piece of Dark Magic. He knows that Lupin and Harry have been and the man *was* a DE and does seem to be pretty proficient at DADA. I do agree that Snape seriously disagrees with Dumbledore's treatment of Harry, but even placing that as his highest priority, I can't decide whether he would therefore act as you suggest and keep quiet, or whether he wouldn't take more drastic action, in ensuring the Map was 'lost'. I suspect the latter. Nor can I get over the fact that much as they disagree, Snape and Dumbledore do seem to enjoy each others' confidence, Snape seems to have no problem telling Dumbledore when he disagrees with him and he is, or was *his spy*. How can he justify the risk of witholding information? Neville Longbottom was slated by McGonagall for leaving the Gryffindor passwords lying around. Snape left something which was clearly dangerous in the wrong hands in circulation within the castle. One conclusion was that Lupin would take it with him. Since he didn't trust Lupin, wasn't this a risky thing to allow? Even if he predicted Lupin would give it back to Harry, I still believe that he thought that it originated with Lupin, rather than Dumbledore, so again, it was risky. I suppose that in GoF, once he realises that 'Moody' has it, perhaps he believes it's in safe hands. But it's his actions in PoA that I can't fathom. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Dec 16 20:32:28 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:32:28 -0000 Subject: Fudge is evi l was TBAY: The Order of the Flying Hedgehog: open for business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48390 Fudge is evil? Why does Fudge need to be "good" or "evil"? Why can't he be as his name implies ? a fudge between the two? I don't think that it would be unfair to see the characters in the Potterverse as on a good/bad continuum. Voldemort is fairly obviously at the end of the bad, and for argument sake I put Dumbledore at the end of the good. No other character is painted in such black and white terms. Even Harry, who we know will never go to the bad side is hardly an angel. He lies, he enjoys getting one over Draco, yet, he is virtuous and brave and acts selflessly for the benefit of the good. Why must Fudge then be "evil"? By failing to believe that a risen Voldemort was possible, and failing to act, or worse still, preventing Dumbledore from acting to stop Voldemort in his tracks, he is benefiting the Dark side. This stance doesn't need to be because he wants Voldemort to come back. Rather that he is so scared of the memories of Voldemort's previous reign, that he is incapable of rising to the challenge. This makes him dangerous. Certainly history will not regard him kindly, but it does not make him evil. He can be self absorbed, terrified of losing his position. This wouldn't qualify him as a "goodie", but it hardly makes him evil. Fudge is certainly very dangerous. Allowing Sirius to lie unconvicted in the cells of Azkaban is hardly a trait that I would admire in a politician. There are definite questions to be asked over Sirius' arrest and indeed Hagrid's. These could easily be explained by the word "fear". Is it not possible that Sirius' wand still lies bagged up in an evidence archive. There was no trial, there is no suggestion even that Sirius gave a witness statement or tried to tell anyone what happened. The circumstantial evidence was compelling; people looked no further. Fear would perhaps have allowed for Sirius' arrest in what was effectively wartime. Internment has been justified in such times of crisis by many countries that would otherwise like to display a sound judicial system. Whilst this makes me personally feel very uncomfortable it does not make him worse than many leaders over the years. Fudge's failure to move on though, is shown by the absence of a trial even years later for Sirius. He is driven by fear of bad public opinion. This fear drives him to send Hagrid to Azkaban and failure to check Lucius' influence upon committees within the wizarding world. As others and I have previously commented, I am struck by the resemblance of Fudge to Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain had seen Britain go through the First World War, carnage so horrific that he was prepared to do, or believe anything to stop it happening again. Of course, appeasement proved a catastrophic disaster and led Hitler to grow unchecked. This policy was evidently very wrong but the belief behind it was not evil. I also speculate on Fudge as a kind of Pontius Pilate figure. When Harry was the darling of the populus, Fudge was very protective of him. If the tide changes, I would not be surprised to see Fudge martyr Harry, figuratively, at the very least. Ali From louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 20:18:30 2002 From: louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com (louise_keithly ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:18:30 -0000 Subject: Nicknames Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48391 Hi I have spend the past week reading the HP books for the first time. I am now half way through P o A, and find myself hooked on the adventures of Harry and his pals. I do have something niggling me a little though. Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do when they meet is assign each other nickames. Am I the only one who finds this odd? Louise. From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Mon Dec 16 20:52:52 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:52:52 -0600 Subject: Where is Crouch Jr? Message-ID: <00ee01c2a545$1ae1d750$854053d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 48392 So where is Barty Crouch Jr? Last mention of him, he's in what should have been Mad Eye Moody's office, having just had his soul sucked out of him. I don't recall Lupin saying what becomes of such a person after the fact. They just exist. How? Like a zombie? Like a vegetable? Like a very retarded person? Or like a very soulless and evil wizard? Hm.. without a soul, I'm wondering if that makes him more dangerous. With no moral conscience, what does he have to lose? Without a soul, does this make him more like a psychopath... If the WW feel responsible for such a soulless creature, evil as he is, would they put him in Azkaban - and if so, what "enjoyment" would a Dementor have with him. Without a soul, I would think that he has no happy or unhappy thoughts, and he wouldn't provide any kind of meal for a Dementor. If being soulless is a dangerous thing, then putting him there with the Dementors whom V oldemort is most likely to try and reconnect with, then this would be a bad idea. Or, if Crouch Jr. is more like a person who needs to be hospitalized, then he would probably end up at St. Mungo's with the Longbottoms. Hm... I can picture that. A dawning realization on the part of the Longbottoms when they see Crouch Jr. - or when Neville and his Gram comes to visit. Seemingly, however, Crouch Jr. has inherited the family fortune and could live with a hired nurse to care for him. Who would manage his estate then... Grace [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkearney at students.miami.edu Mon Dec 16 20:55:49 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:55:49 -0000 Subject: The Nature of Cowardice (was Fudge is not evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48393 Debbie wrote: > > I have believed for a long time that Fudge is Evil. He is portrayed > as a hapless, half-wit that needs Dumbledore's help everyday > (remember PS/SS and the owls he send DD?). How did someone like that > become Minister of Magic? How in the world did Ludo Bagman get into > the MOM? I think they are in league with each other and are > supporters of Voldemort. Fudge and Ludo's jobs are to create > misinformation and confusion in the governing system. Do you really think all politicians today really deserve to hold the offices they hold? Do you think they got there based soley on their intelligence and ability? I won't mention any names because politics is off limits here. But can you think of a less-than-brilliant person holding a head of state position currently? A former sports star with no political background holding a major office? I certainly can. One doesn't have to be evil or in league with evil overlords to gain an office they may not deserve. My personal opinion is that Fudge is not evil. There are many ways he could have gained his office, especially in a system like the Ministry of Magic which obviously caters to reputable families. Fudge's role, in my opinion, is to show the damage incompetancy can create when faced with evil. Misinformation and confusion will certainly appear, but it won't be intentional on Fudge's behalf. -Corinth From ursula.mueller at same.net Mon Dec 16 20:44:38 2002 From: ursula.mueller at same.net (Ursula Mueller.=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_FV-Mp.gr=F6na?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:44:38 +0100 Subject: Some personal thoughts about ... Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48394 After having read a couple of the amazing essays on http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ , I might give it a try and put in my view on one issue (first post, btw): On Snape 1) Snapes character: Snape is a bitter, vitriolic misanthrope. Dont know what made him so extremely bitter and misanthropic in the first place. Maybe he was utterly mistreated and mobbed by his schoolmates, could be because of his strange appearance (oily hair and the like). I see a genuine abhorrence towards the Marauders in general and the whole Potter family in particular. He simply seems to hate goodness, and the Potter family is an epitome of goodness. Therefore, it must be especially painful for him to be indebted to Potter sr., a debt, which Harry inherited. As the mobbed and disliked child that he was (my qualified guessing), Snape must have felt painful enviousness towards children who were admired by nearly the whole school (Sirius Black and Potter sr., for instance). Snape is still sporting the same enviousness and resentment towards Harry (the - famous - Potter ...). However, I think Snape is a good person deep inside. :-) He has a certain kind of morality, true commitment and straightforwardness, which I find very appealing. :-) 2) Why does Snape bully around the Gryffindors (Hermione, Neville in particular)? Snape has to show loyality for his house, otherwise the Slytherin parents, especially Lucius Malfoy, would get *very* suspicious about him. Dumbledore placed Snape as the head of Slytherin, to both keep an eye on the Slytherins and to make him a credible spy for future missions. Of course, for the same reason, he has to bully Hermione (all true Slytherins abhor muggle wizards and witches, of course). However, Snapes mistreatment of poor Neville Longbottom might go back to Snapes own history as a mobbed child. Sometimes, mistreated children look for other children who are farther down the pecking order. Neville is such an example. Sad, but true. 3) Why did Snape join the Death Eaters? The mobbed child theory again: After leaving school, Snape knew that he never, ever would gain the same admired status as Potter sr. & Co. At that time, he must already be quite a bitter misanthrope. Snape - being treated so badly himself at early age - has lost all his faith in goodness. Moreover, he has always been a very ambitious and power-hungry person - a true Slytherin! ;-) . What is more natural for him than joining the forces who promise him glory, prestige and status? Where he can give rein to his hatred and loathing of goodness? I think Snape might have learned - the hard way - that even goodness has its inherent ambiguity. Why are all these other people admiring Potter sr. & Co.? What makes Potter sr. & Co. so special? Is this admiration and unconditional worship by nearly the entire school also part of an evil power-game? In some way, Snape saw through this game, but he followed his misanthropic bitterness and became truly evil himself. 4) Why did Snape leave the Death Eaters? I agree with comments stated in the Snape-essay, that at the end, Snape felt betrayed and exploited by Voldemort. He understood that he would never gain true status and glory by serving Voldemort, because Voldemort is an egomaniac who uses others to reach his personal goal of boundless power. 4) Why does Snape not qualify for the DADA job? Dumbledore is very well aware of the fact that Snape was a Death Eater (I am sure that Snape is the missing one who left Voldemort forever). Dumbledore might still not fully trust Snape. Dealing directly with the Dark Arts could anew corrupt Snape and draw him back into evil. Of course, Snape is totally convinced that he would be the best DADA teacher ever, because of his history as a Death Eater. Snape might know even more about the Dark Arts than Dumbledore himself. 5) Is Snape going to die? It seems, for what is stated in the Snape-essay, that Snape survives until Book Seven, at least. Good for us, because he is such an intruiging character! :-) I still am convinced, however, that he will die, saving Harrys live and thereby fulfilling the debt to Potter sr. . ***Ursula Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus. - HP series From fbrown at acay.com.au Mon Dec 16 20:50:03 2002 From: fbrown at acay.com.au (Fiona) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:50:03 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nicknames In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48395 12/17/2002 7:18:30 AM, "louise_keithly " wrote: > Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do > when they meet is assign each other nickames. > > Am I the only one who finds this odd? > > Louise. > I don't find it odd at all. I teach children, and we hear abbreviations (such as Ron for Ronald) but nicknames in common use are quite rare. In an Australian school, "Hermione" would definitely be shortened - I'm not sure to what, but no Australian can cope with a four syllable name :-) In my class of 24, I have several abbreviated names - Sam for Samuel and Tom for Thomas, Kate for Kathryn. But no nicknames being used by the general population. I can't think of any regular nickname I've heard in use, either in classroom or playground. Sorry Fiona From Audra1976 at aol.com Mon Dec 16 21:06:26 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:06:26 EST Subject: Fleur (was: Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48396 rsteph1981 at yahoo.com writes: << It seemed to me that Fleur took the threat very seriously. She was, after all, fighting Maxime to go to Gabrielle. That Cedric and Krum didn't believe they would die, I give you, but I can't agree about Fleur. She seemed waaay to upset about it. She was worried about Gabrielle, not points. >> Speaking of which, this is one of the parts that bothers me as a woman. "Madame Maxime was trying to restrain Fleur Delacour, who was quite hysterical, fighting tooth and nail to return to the water. 'Gabrielle! Gabrielle! Is she alive? Is she 'urt?'" I feel that this makes Fleur appear weaker than the male competitors. Fleur, the female character, is "hysterical," a word that was first coined specifically for women (hyster = uterus). It's true that Harry also took the threat seriously, but he is still portrayed as a stronger character. First, Harry is not as old as Fleur, Victor, and Cedric. We expect the three older champions to act in a more mature manner, yet in this instance, Fleur is on Harry's level, while Victor and Cedric are acting in a more mature manner. Second, Harry heard and saw the scary-looking merpeople, and saw the hostages tied up under the water, and that is what really added to his feeling that the hostages were in danger. He thinks about "how eerie it was down in the lake, surrounded by spear-carrying merpeople who'd looked more than capable of murder." Fleur never saw what Harry saw. She never even made it past the grindylows. Third, when Harry is back on land he realizes that he just got caught up in the moment: "Now he was out of the water, it seemed perfectly clear that Dumbledores safety precautions wouldn't have permitted the death of a hostage just because their champion hadn't turned up." But Fleur, who has been out of the water for a while, is still convinced that her sister's life had been in danger. In the first task, Fleur faced the Welsch Green, which was the smallest, and seemingly least threatening, of the dragons. It is specifically stated that her hand is shaking when she reaches into the bag to select her dragon, but this is not said about any of the boys. The announcer's commentary on Fleur is the most negative. Of Cedric's strategy the announcer says, "Clever move--pity it didn't work." Of Victor's, "That's some nerve he's showing," but of Fleur's he says, "Oh, I'm not sure that was wise." None of the three's strategies were the best ones to use, but Fleur didn't get any comments about her strategy at least being clever or brave. In the third task, Fleur is taken out of the picture by a simple stunning spell, while Crouch-as-Moody resorts to two of the Unforgivables to get rid of Cedric and Victor. Does this portrayal of Fleur strike anyone else as sexist? Audra From Audra1976 at aol.com Mon Dec 16 21:12:24 2002 From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:12:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nicknames Message-ID: <54.4d2a716.2b2f9bb8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48397 louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com writes: << Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. >> I was under the impression that Harry and Ron were nicknames already (for Harold and Ronald). Hermione needs a nickname, but what would it be? "Herm," "Hermy"? Doesn't sound very appealing. Just 'Mione sounds okay, but that only knocks of one syllable. Audra From suzchiles at pobox.com Mon Dec 16 21:18:16 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:18:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nicknames In-Reply-To: <54.4d2a716.2b2f9bb8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48398 Are nicknames as popular in Great Britain as they are in America? I don't know too many Brits, but the ones I do know have always gone by their full name. Suzanne > -----Original Message----- > From: Audra1976 at aol.com [mailto:Audra1976 at aol.com] > louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com writes: > > << Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by > their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. >> > > I was under the impression that Harry and Ron were nicknames already (for > Harold and Ronald). Hermione needs a nickname, but what would it be? > "Herm," "Hermy"? Doesn't sound very appealing. Just 'Mione > sounds okay, but > that only knocks of one syllable. From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 21:19:07 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:19:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Nicknames In-Reply-To: <54.4d2a716.2b2f9bb8@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021216211907.34339.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48399 --- Audra1976 at aol.com wrote: > I was under the impression that Harry and Ron were nicknames already > (for > Harold and Ronald). Hermione needs a nickname, but what would it be? > "Herm," "Hermy"? Doesn't sound very appealing. Just 'Mione sounds > okay, but > that only knocks of one syllable. I believe that JKR has said in interview that "Harry" is his Christian name; ie, it's not short for Harold, Henry, or anything else. While a lot of names WILL be shortened (my friend Kathy was only called Katherine by her mother), a lot of it depends on the person's personality. My nephew Michael is fairly serious and does not tolerate ANY attempts to call him Mike, Mikey, or anything else. Likewise, I refuse to ever be called Andy. I think Hermione's personality wouldn't invite nicknames. The boys can try calling her Hermy all they want, but if she doesn't answer to it, eventually they'd give up. ;) One of my pet peeves in fanfic is Harry and Ron suddenly calling her "Mione" *constantly*. If they actually called her that, it would've shown up in the books before now! Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 21:25:09 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:25:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Nicknames In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021216212509.81737.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48400 --- Suzanne Chiles wrote: > Are nicknames as popular in Great Britain as they are in America? I > don't > know too many Brits, but the ones I do know have always gone by their > full > name. I knew I forgot to include something in my last post. *g* I went to school in England for a few years, and I didn't notice nearly the number of nicknames as I'd seen in the States. It was usually the full "Adrienne", "Catherine", and "Alicia", not Adri, Cathy, and Ali. Our Head Girl was Emma Louise, and I wouldn't even shorten that to Emma. It seemed to me that the students "casual name" among friends was just their first name -- students who weren't friends would call each other by their last name, so just calling someone by first name was like using a nickname to us. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From wynnde1 at aol.com Mon Dec 16 21:26:36 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:26:36 EST Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? Message-ID: <80.24a12929.2b2f9f0c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48401 Hello, Everyone, Something struck me a few weeks ago as I was reading a discussion about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and I've been pondering it ever since. It's not something I remember discussion about in the 10 months or so that I've been on this list, so I thought it might be fun to explore. We have spent a lot of time wondering why it is that Dumbledore trusts Snape, knowing that he'd been a Death Eater (Snape, not Dumbledore ). We're not the only ones who wonder this, of course - Harry himself has wondered the same thing: **** "What made you think [Snape had] really stopped supporting Voldemort, Professor?" Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and then said, "That, Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and myself." (GoF, Chapter 30) **** Well, I started thinking . . . maybe we're asking the wrong question. Of course wondering why Dumbledore trusts Snape is a valid question, but what if we look at it from the other way around: Just why is it that *Snape* trusts *Dumbledore*? What a silly question, you may be thinking. But maybe it's not. What follows is my interpretation of a possible backstory for these events. None of this is original thinking on my part, it's just the version I've pieced together from the theories of others. We'll start with the "prank" (Doesn't it *always* start with the "prank ). Sirius tells Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow. Snape goes down and sees a transformed Lupin. James rushes in and saves Snape from being attacked. Snape goes to Dumbledore with the story, and most likely demands that Sirius be expelled or sent to Azkaban or kissed or some other suitable (in Snape's estimation) punishment. Dumbledore tells Snape how sorry he is that this terrible thing has happened, obtains from him a promise that he will not "out" Lupin to anyone, and sends him away promising to deal with Sirius, and maybe the other marauders as well. Now, we know that Sirius was neither expelled, nor sent to Azkaban (not for this, anyway), nor kissed. As has been recently discussed, we don't know what, if any, punishment was given. I do believe that Dumbledore did punish Sirius, but *we* don't know what this punishment was, and I think it likely that *Snape* also did not know the extent of the punishment. It may have been a completely private matter, or maybe it was just a matter of taking some house points away. We don't know. But it seems clear that whatever punishment Sirius did receive, Snape didn't think it sufficient in light of the fact that he could have been killed by Sirius' actions. And of course, Snape didn't like Sirius to begin with, so he would be even more outraged to see him get off with what he perceived as "too light" a punishment (or none at all). At this point, Snape's hatred of the Marauders, James especially, really takes hold and becomes more intense than ever. But, more significantly, Snape loses the respect and affection he felt for Dumbledore. The Headmaster was a positive father-figure for him, and in letting Sirius get away almost literally "with murder" (in Snape's eyes, if not in reality), Snape loses faith in Dumbledore, and also in the "good" side, which Dumbledore represents. He sees Dumbledore favouring the Gryffindors, and not seeming to hold Snape's own life in very high esteem. (Again - I'm not saying Dumbledore really did favour the Gryffs, this is just my opinion about *Snape's* interpretation of events. Although, honestly, I think we've seen at least one glaring example in canon where Dumbledore did just this - the end of PS/SS. I don't disagree with the points he awarded Harry and Co, but I do strongly disagree with the way they were awarded). So, having lost his trust in Dumbledore, it is that much easier for Snape to be convinced to join Voldemort. (I'm not excusing that decision, just offering a reason as to why it might have seemed more attractive than it did before Dumbledore's "betrayal"). So Snape becomes a Death Eater, and goes on to merrily commit lots of crimes and atrocities. At some point, however, he becomes disillusioned with this path that he has taken, and decides to return to Dumbledore's service. . Okay, after all that, we're back to my original question: Why, now, does Snape choose to trust Dumbledore? In Snape's mind, Dumbledore let Snape down once before, and since that time Snape has been hanging around with people who are hardly good role-models in the trust department, and has probably (okay, certainly) not been acting in the most morally upright manner himself. Is it just that Snape, out of the blue, finally sees that Dumbledore was a really great guy after all? This seems a bit unlikely, to me. I would think that Snape would want to have something of a bit more substance in order to restore his faith and trust in Dumbledore. It might even be something *bangy* (but it doesn't *have* to bang for me to like it). Furthermore, has Snape "forgiven" Dumbledore for "betraying" him in favour of the Gryffs? Does Snape now see that Dumbledore was right in the way he handled the aftermath of the "prank?" Snape returns to Dumbledore - not just to the good side, but specifically to be a spy for Dumbledore. So something must have changed Snape's mind and convinced him that Dumbledore was trustworthy and an honourable ally, after all. And I think it's clear that Snape does not now have complete faith in Dumbledore's judgement: We learn in Chapter 9 of PoA that Snape does not trust Dumbledore's judgement in hiring Lupin: **** "Remember the conversation we had, Headmaster, just before - ah - the start of term?" said Snape, who was barely opening his lips, as though trying to block Percy out of the conversation. "I do, Severus," said Dumbledore, and there was something like warning in his voice. "It seems - almost impossible - that Black could have entered the school without inside help. I did express my concerns when you appointed -" "I do not believe a single person inside this castle would have helped Black enter it," said Dumbledore, and his tone made it so clear the subject was closed that Snape didn't reply. **** This exchange makes it obvious that Snape does *not* trust Dumbledore implicitly, and where Lupin is concerned (assuming that it is, indeed Lupin to whom Snape was referring), Snape continued to press Dumbledore on the subject, even after receiving a "warning" look from him. So, although the general impression I have from the text is that Snape *does* trust Dumbledore now, it is clear to me that he doesn't always trust Dumbledore's *judgement* about things. (We also have examples of where Snape does not agree with Dumbledore's treatment of Harry). And, after all, at this point, as far as the Wizarding World (including Dumbledore) is concerned, Snape was *right* about Sirius' murderous tendencies. This is the guy who, after setting up Snape to be murdered by a werewolf, went on to betray his supposed best friends, and then blow up a whole street full of muggles, plus the heroic (and Dead Sexy . . . NOT! ) Peter Pettigrew. So, why does Snape trust Dumbledore at all? It doesn't seem as though Snape has ever received satisfaction from Dumbledore on the subject of the "prank," (for example, Dumbledore giving an explanation of the punishment Sirius received and why he deemed it appropriate), as Snape still obviously has "issues" surrounding this event. And, at least at this point in the story, Snape would also believe that Dumbledore's judgement about Sirius was seriously flawed. He may even feel that if Dumbledore had punished Sirius in an appropriate manner, things might have been different and the Potters would not have been killed. It makes me wonder if part of the reason Snape now believes Dumbledore so entirely trustworthy is part of the "matter between Severus Snape and myself" I quoted above. Certainly Snape must have done something significant to prove to Dumbledore that he was sincere in returning to the "good" side, but I think that there must also be some proof on Dumbledore's part - proof that Dumbledore can be trusted, and that he does value Snape's life. After all, Snape became a spy "at great personal risk" - why would he do that, unless he believed that Dumbledore would not, once again, undervalue Snape's safety or, indeed, his very life (as he did by showing an inappropriate level of concern after the "prank"). I would be hesitant to risk my life for someone who'd behaved as Snape perceives Dumbledore to have behaved regarding the "prank." (IMO, anyway). That someone would have to do something pretty meaningful to convince me that he or she was, indeed, trustworthy. So, I ask again: Why does Snape trust Dumbledore? I can't think of a single thing in canon that offers an explanation, other than the fact that Dumbledore vouched for Snape during the Death Eater trials. And I believe that whatever brought Dumbledore and Snape back together must have happened before that (or else why would Dumbledore be willing to vouch for Snape?). So, I'd love to hear any thoughts and speculations about this. Although I'm pretty certain that this is one subject upon which we *will* receive satisfaction eventually from JKR herself. I'm sure the subject of Snape's trustworthiness and Death Eater Days will come up in future books. Book 5, preferably. (I am not a patient woman) :-) Wendy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Dec 16 21:37:08 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:37:08 -0000 Subject: Nicknames In-Reply-To: <20021216211907.34339.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48402 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Andrea wrote: > --- Audra1976 at a... wrote: > > I was under the impression that Harry and Ron were nicknames > > already(for > > Harold and Ronald). Hermione needs a nickname, but what would it be? > > "Herm," "Hermy"? Doesn't sound very appealing. Just 'Mione > > sounds okay, but > > that only knocks of one syllable. > Andrea: > I believe that JKR has said in interview that "Harry" is his > Christian name; ie, it's not short for Harold, Henry, or anything >else. > > > ===== Harry is called "Harry James Potter" (various interviews by JKR.). Harry doesn't have to be a nickname for anything - it's the older English pronunciation of Henry and is a perfectly proper name in it's own right. Ron is a shortened form of Ronald - Ron's room at The Burrow has a plaque on it saying 'Ronald's Room' [CoS, Ch. 3 UK paperback] In my (British) school the only time people had nicknames was when there was more than one person in the same class with the same first name. I acquired my own nickname of 'Pip' this way - I shared my first name with two other girls. Otherwise everyone was called by their first names. Pip!Squeak From heidit at netbox.com Mon Dec 16 21:38:18 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:38:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nicknames In-Reply-To: <54.4d2a716.2b2f9bb8@aol.com> Message-ID: <011701c2a54b$8bd29840$0301a8c0@Frodo> No: HPFGUIDX 48403 Audra suggested: > I was under the impression that Harry and Ron were nicknames > already (for > Harold and Ronald). Hermione needs a nickname, but what > would it be? > "Herm," "Hermy"? Doesn't sound very appealing. Just 'Mione > sounds okay, but > that only knocks of one syllable. I know that there's an interview somewhere which says that Harry isn't short for anything (so Harold is out of the question) but at the moment all I can find (thanks to the Goat Pen Search Engine) is the following quote: Q:Why did you chose the name Harry Potter and did you base the character on someone you know? A: Harry is completely imaginary. I took his surname from a family I lived near when I was a child, just because I liked the name and 'Harry' has always been one of my favourite Christian names. http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript.shtml I'm off to keep looking for the other interview, though - but I agree that it's canon that Ron is short for Ronald. Heidi From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 22:26:52 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:26:52 -0000 Subject: Nicknames In-Reply-To: <54.4d2a716.2b2f9bb8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48404 Audra wrote: > I was under the impression that Harry and Ron were nicknames > already (for Harold and Ronald). and Pip!Squeak responded: > Harry doesn't have to be a nickname for anything - it's the older > English pronunciation of Henry and is a perfectly proper name in > it's own right. Now me: In Chapter 1 of PS/SS, Uncle Vernon thinks to himself "Come to think of it, he wasn't even sure his nephew *was* called Harry...It might have been Harvey. Or Harold." So canon supports the position that Harry and Harold are distinctly different names. ~Phyllis who was always called "Phyllis," except by her three brothers From pacific_k at hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 22:34:23 2002 From: pacific_k at hotmail.com (pacificlippert ) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:34:23 -0000 Subject: Fleur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48405 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Audra1976 at a... wrote: > Speaking of which, this is one of the parts that bothers me as a woman. > "Madame Maxime was trying to restrain Fleur Delacour, who was quite > hysterical, fighting tooth and nail to return to the water. > > 'Gabrielle! Gabrielle! Is she alive? Is she 'urt?'" > Fleur never saw what Harry saw. She never even > made it past the grindylows. Perhaps this scene is all in perspective...after all, we don't know how long the people on the shore could see Harry and the others coming up, and once they were above water, Ron was moving and speaking, but Gabrielle was not. Maybe it appeared to Fleur that her sister was not responding properly and might be hurt, and being a more expressive person, her reaction appeared more flamboyant. As for Cedric and Krum behaving "better", remember that they _had_ their hostages already. I don't personally see Fleur's portrayal as sexist, any more than I see it as a negative impression of the French (; All in all, my impression of the details given about Fleur's actions and behavior was that JKR was trying to give us a feeling of her presence--that people really noticed things about her, and that she was very flamboyant...sort of a watered down version of all that veela stuff. Just a thought (: Karie From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Mon Dec 16 22:55:48 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:55:48 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nicknames In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021216215117.009c1110@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 48406 Louise Keithly wrote: >Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by >their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. > >Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do >when they meet is assign each other nickames. I know several people have commented on this already, but I want to go off on a different tack. Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here: nicknames against abbreviated forms of given names. In terms of nicknames, in my experience at school, nicknames are generally insulting or otherwise unflattering to the bearer, regardless of whether or not they are assigned by friends or enemies. Friends don't normally use such nicknames to each others' faces, so in that respect, lack of nicknames are possibly true to life. HOWEVER, one element of school life definitely missing from the books is assigning nicknames to teachers. In every school I ever attended (and those of my siblings), most teachers had at least two nicknames (one passed from each generation of pupils to the next, the other usually more original); what was surprising to me was how unaware some of the teachers were of their assigned nicknames, to the extent that one could talk openly of "The Ape" or "Benny" in those people's presence, and they didn't have a clue. Before anyone insists that I'm deluding myself about their lack of awareness, I became very friendly with several of my erstwhile teachers as an adult, and both The Ape and Benny were visibly shocked during a late night drinking session when I told them (they were no longer on the school staff by that stage). "Concorde", on the other hand, always knew she had been called that although she'd never let on. :-) I do find it particularly bizarre that Dumbledore, Snape and McGonagall don't have any form of nickname, and some teachers (Sprout, Binns and Flitwick) are particularly ripe for attention. The only people in the books with nicknames are ghosts: Nearly-Headless Nick and Moaning Myrtle (the other ghosts aren't known by their given names, but it seems as if they're unknown - even Peeves refers to the Bloody Baron as such rather than by name). Equally, a common touch is to assign nicknames to one's *enemies*, and that the Trio haven't come up with something to call Draco, Crabbe, Goyle or several others is slightly baffling. TMTSNBN2 at least has Draco calling Harry "Saint Potter" to Polyjuice!Crabbe & Goyle, and taunts him with "Scarhead" during the Quidditch match. Perhaps this was a deliberate touch by Kloves to set the Slyths apart from our virtuous Gryffs and have them engaging in cruel name-calling, but I'd certainly expect more of it in the books. On the separate issue of abbreviated names, it should be pointed out that Ron is short for Ronald. Everyone calls Ron that, because that's the way he introduces himself. The same goes for Hermione. People are normally called by the name which they prefer to use for themselves. For instance, most people who know me are aware that I dislike all abbreviated forms of Richard, and thus don't use them about me. I'm rather unusual in that the only people who use an abbreviated form of my name are my parents and a few of their friends I've known all my life, to the extent that these people have *never* used my full first name other than when talking about me in formal circumstances. Generally speaking, Brits don't use abbreviated names much - I know several "Charleses", but only one "Charlie" (who happens to be American...); several "Richards" but no "Dicks", several "Jameses" but no "Jims"; several "Stephens/Stevens" but only one "Steve". Of course that's not an iron-clad rule: I know loads of "Nicks" (including two brothers-in-law) who absolutely hate being called "Nicholas". Among famous people we have for instance (in the UK sports news last week because of the Snooker Championships) *Stephen* Hendry, but *Steve* Davis. Perhaps interestingly, Steve is 20 years older than Stephen; there is a possible age-related difference at play here. Most of the names in canon are pretty short anyway, so abbreviations aren't really necessary. "Nev" for Neville simply sounds daft; Dean, Seamus, Fred, George and Draco don't abbreviate. Of course, Hermione is a prime contender for abbreviation as a name, but the character's personally absolutely brands her a "Hermione", and not a "Hermie", "Minny" or other possibilities. And Percy doubtless HATES being called "Perce" (used by Bill on a couple of occasions in GoF, and even Fred - or is it George? - gets one in). -- GulPlum AKA Richard, who hasn't been around much for the last few weeks due to concentrating on the Movie list, but is now back. :-) From wynnde1 at aol.com Mon Dec 16 23:31:38 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:31:38 EST Subject: Evil!McGonagall revisited (briefly) Message-ID: <105.224f9581.2b2fbc5a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48407 Hello, Everyone, Earlier today, in reading Eloise's TBAY post about Fudge (who is, of *course* Ever So Evil!), I noticed her mention at the end about the Evil!McGonagall discussion, which took place back in June or thereabouts. In an amazing Trelawnyesque cosmic conjunction of events , I happened across a tiny little Evil!McGonagall canon tonight, while reading Goblet of Fire. I took a look through the archives, and didn't find this one mentioned anywhere, so I thought I'd toss it out (my apologies if someone did mention it before; I didn't read *every single* post on the subject): Chapter 12 (the Triwizard Tournament) (The students have just arrived in the castle, and Peeves is pelting them with water balloons. McGonagall arrives . . . ) "PEEVES!" yelled an angry voice. "Peeves, come down here at ONCE!" Professor McGonagall, deputy headmistress and Head of Gryffindor house, had come dashing out of the Great Hall; she skidded on the wet floor and grabbed Hermione around the neck to stop herself falling. "Ouch - sorry, Miss Granger -" "That's all right, Professor!" Hermione gasped, massaging her throat. **** Clearly, this can be taken as evidence for Evil!McGonagall. So, is it 1) an actual murder attempt? Did McGonagall fake skidding and hope to actually break Hermione's throat in an apparent accident? "Grabbing" Hermione by the neck hardly seems accidental to me. When I'm stumbling and trying to catch myself, I'm much more likely to grab an arm or a shoulder. Perhaps McGonagall even coerced Peeves into throwing the balloons, in order to create the proper conditions for such an attempt. Or maybe McGonagall is just canny enough to sieze the opportunity for an attack on Hermione when she noticed the wet floor. Or, is it 2) just a clever bit of foreshadowing by the author, looking ahead to the time when McGonagall will make an attempt on Hermione by strangling her (and perhaps be successful?). Or perhaps it won't be strangling, but decapitation? That's a theme in these books, after all, and it would definitely effect Hermione's throat! What? A third possiblity, I hear some of you say . . . it was really an *accident*? Oh, no, of course not. What fun is there is that? :-) Wendy (Who thinks her option 2 is the most likely, and who really liked the Evil!McGonagall theory first time around, and now actually does think of her as an evil character most of the time. For details about the theory in it's entirety, the most comprehensive posts that I uncovered in the archives were: #39470 by Elkins; #38783 by Porphyria; and #39495 by Cindy). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Dec 17 00:50:58 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:50:58 -0000 Subject: FILK: What Could His Motives Be? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48408 What Could His Motives Be? To the tune of "What Does He Want of Me?" from "Man of La Mancha" Dedicated to my fellow Sirius Apologists Why did he do the things that he did, Why did he do these things? How could he send Snape to the Willow to die, Why suspect Remus of being a spy, Why switch with Peter in such secrecy, Oh, what could his motives be? What could his motives be? Why does he act the way that he acts, Why does he act this way? Slashing the Fat Lady, injuring Ron, Trying to throttle his only godson, Maybe he suffers from PTSD... Oh, what could his motives be? What could his motives be? Was he a rake? Did he just make a tragic mistake? All these Sirius mysteries keep Me awake. Why won't he feel the things that he should, Why won't he feel these things? Isn't he sorry for what he has done, Does he still think that the Prank was good fun, When will he offer an apology? Oh, what could his motives be? What could his motives be? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Tue Dec 17 01:26:59 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:26:59 +0000 Subject: Where's Durmstrang? (Was: What was V-mort's goal?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021217004443.00969d00@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 48410 Janet Anderson wrote: >1) We know that Albania is a place where Voldemort and his minions have >hidden at least twice. > >2) We have reason to believe that Durmstrang is somewhere cold, mountainous, >and secluded (Hermione's deduction from the fur cloaks and Krum's >description of the landscape there). > >Could Durmstrang be in Albania or someplace near it? This would explain the >emphasis on the Dark Arts, Voldemort's influence on Karkaroff, and possibly >another reason why Lucius Malfoy wanted to send Draco there. Many people place Albania somewhere near the Arctic. (This is a popular misconception, not just in HP circles; whether or not this misconception is excusable is not for me to say.) On the contrary, Albania is on the Adriatic coast at a similar latitude to Italy and shares a border with Greece. It is therefore quite a warm country... Krum describes the lakes, mountains and glaciers which surround Durmstrang, and whilst Albania has lots of "mountains", they're better described as tall hills, although Albania's basic ground level is quite high; there are three sizeable lakes, which are far apart and each of which is a major tourist attraction, and thus unlikely to be a centre of wizarding life. There are absolutely, definitely, no glaciers. Winters are wet rather than cold. In late October (when the ship sets off for Hogwarts), it would still be warm and dry and furs wouldn't be part of the Durmstrang contingent's attire (although this could be countered by *Scotland* being cold at that time of year). Furthermore, the long summer days and endless winter nights puts the location very high north, and so the only options for Durmstrang's location are the Scandinavian peninsula or northern Russia. As I said above, this is where a lot of people seem to place Albania; it's just possible that JKR's knowledge of Central European geography is lacking and she suffers from the same misconception. However, given the amount of research she seems to have put into the books' background, I find it unlikely that if she didn't know her European geography, she didn't look at an atlas before putting such an emphasis on that part of the world: Krum is Bulgarian (just the other side of Macedonia from Albania), Voldemort spends time in Albania and there are sizable dragon colonies in Romania. This therefore begs a completely different question: why does Krum, from southern Europe, attend a school in northern Europe? The Muggle cultures involved have very little in common, and it's likely that the wizarding cultures would be equally incompatible. It seems likely that there is a sizable wizarding community in southern Europe: enough to warrant maintaining a school. So I repeat: why does Krum attend a school such a distance from his home turf? -- GulPlum AKA Richard, who's been wondering about that for a LONG time but this is the first time he's put it into words... From kristen at sanderson-web.com Tue Dec 17 01:27:40 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:27:40 -0000 Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: <80.24a12929.2b2f9f0c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48411 Sorry, newbie post ahead... I like your essay and it made me think of a few reasons. Whatever else Snape is, he is not stupid. He strikes me as someone who knows how he wants things done (not that he ever gets to do them that way). Maybe it's not a question of why Snape trusts Dumbledore, but instead, why he made the choice between Dumbledore and Voldemort. In GoF we get to see Voldemort meeting with his death eaters. Voldemort is clearly a leader who does not take input from his followers. He does not listen to his supporters and is quick to punish perceived stupidity. Some of the death eaters in his inner circle were grown Crabbe and Goyles who do not represent any intelligence at all. The only person Voldemorte treats with any respect at all is Malfoy and that is even grudging. On the other hand, think about Dumbledore. Whether Snape agrees with him or not, Dumbledore is much more likely to allow people to make their own decisions and give respect and credit where it is due. He gives everyone the opportunity to be themselves. Even for Snape, although Dumbledore is benevolent, he does not try to control how Snape treats his students. Snape clearly has the leanings to the dark side. In GoF (I think) Sirius states that Snape knew more curses coming into his first year than most seven year students. That means to me that he had a poor childhood. Perhaps it was the easy way for him to continue with the flow and go to Voldemort's camp. However, as I said, he is no dummy. It could be that when faced with the two possible leaders, he saw more possibilities for his future with Dumbledore than with Voldemort. I also believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy, but I think it will be interesting to see how JKR gets there. My question is, how will Snape treat Harry next year? At the end of GoF, Snape was present when many of the things he had accused Harry of were debunked. Will he take it to heart, or will he continue on as before? Kristen --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnde1 at a... wrote: > Hello, Everyone, > > Something struck me a few weeks ago as I was reading a discussion about why > Dumbledore trusts Snape, and I've been pondering it ever since. It's not > something I remember discussion about in the 10 months or so that I've been > on this list, so I thought it might be fun to explore. We have spent a lot of > time wondering why it is that Dumbledore trusts Snape, knowing that he'd been > a Death Eater (Snape, not Dumbledore ). We're not the only ones who wonder > this, of course - Harry himself has wondered the same thing: > > **** > "What made you think [Snape had] really stopped supporting Voldemort, > Professor?" > Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and then said, "That, > Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and myself." (GoF, Chapter 30) > > **** > > Well, I started thinking . . . maybe we're asking the wrong question. Of > course wondering why Dumbledore trusts Snape is a valid question, but what if > we look at it from the other way around: Just why is it that *Snape* trusts > *Dumbledore*? > > What a silly question, you may be thinking. But maybe it's not. What follows > is my interpretation of a possible backstory for these events. None of this > is original thinking on my part, it's just the version I've pieced together > from the theories of others. > > We'll start with the "prank" (Doesn't it *always* start with the "prank ). > Sirius tells Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow. Snape goes down and > sees a transformed Lupin. James rushes in and saves Snape from being > attacked. Snape goes to Dumbledore with the story, and most likely demands > that Sirius be expelled or sent to Azkaban or kissed or some other suitable > (in Snape's estimation) punishment. Dumbledore tells Snape how sorry he is > that this terrible thing has happened, obtains from him a promise that he > will not "out" Lupin to anyone, and sends him away promising to deal with > Sirius, and maybe the other marauders as well. > > Now, we know that Sirius was neither expelled, nor sent to Azkaban (not for > this, anyway), nor kissed. As has been recently discussed, we don't know > what, if any, punishment was given. I do believe that Dumbledore did punish > Sirius, but *we* don't know what this punishment was, and I think it likely > that *Snape* also did not know the extent of the punishment. It may have been > a completely private matter, or maybe it was just a matter of taking some > house points away. We don't know. But it seems clear that whatever punishment > Sirius did receive, Snape didn't think it sufficient in light of the fact > that he could have been killed by Sirius' actions. And of course, Snape > didn't like Sirius to begin with, so he would be even more outraged to see > him get off with what he perceived as "too light" a punishment (or none at > all). > > At this point, Snape's hatred of the Marauders, James especially, really > takes hold and becomes more intense than ever. But, more significantly, Snape > loses the respect and affection he felt for Dumbledore. The Headmaster was a > positive father-figure for him, and in letting Sirius get away almost > literally "with murder" (in Snape's eyes, if not in reality), Snape loses > faith in Dumbledore, and also in the "good" side, which Dumbledore > represents. He sees Dumbledore favouring the Gryffindors, and not seeming to > hold Snape's own life in very high esteem. (Again - I'm not saying Dumbledore > really did favour the Gryffs, this is just my opinion about *Snape's* > interpretation of events. Although, honestly, I think we've seen at least one > glaring example in canon where Dumbledore did just this - the end of PS/SS. I > don't disagree with the points he awarded Harry and Co, but I do strongly > disagree with the way they were awarded). > > So, having lost his trust in Dumbledore, it is that much easier for Snape to > be convinced to join Voldemort. (I'm not excusing that decision, just > offering a reason as to why it might have seemed more attractive than it did > before Dumbledore's "betrayal"). So Snape becomes a Death Eater, and goes on > to merrily commit lots of crimes and atrocities. At some point, however, he > becomes disillusioned with this path that he has taken, and decides to return > to Dumbledore's service. > > . > > Okay, after all that, we're back to my original question: Why, now, does > Snape choose to trust Dumbledore? In Snape's mind, Dumbledore let Snape down > once before, and since that time Snape has been hanging around with people > who are hardly good role-models in the trust department, and has probably > (okay, certainly) not been acting in the most morally upright manner himself. > Is it just that Snape, out of the blue, finally sees that Dumbledore was a > really great guy after all? This seems a bit unlikely, to me. I would think > that Snape would want to have something of a bit more substance in order to > restore his faith and trust in Dumbledore. It might even be something *bangy* > (but it doesn't *have* to bang for me to like it). Furthermore, has Snape > "forgiven" Dumbledore for "betraying" him in favour of the Gryffs? Does Snape > now see that Dumbledore was right in the way he handled the aftermath of the > "prank?" Snape returns to Dumbledore - not just to the good side, but > specifically to be a spy for Dumbledore. So something must have changed > Snape's mind and convinced him that Dumbledore was trustworthy and an > honourable ally, after all. > > And I think it's clear that Snape does not now have complete faith in > Dumbledore's judgement: We learn in Chapter 9 of PoA that Snape does not > trust Dumbledore's judgement in hiring Lupin: > > **** > "Remember the conversation we had, Headmaster, just before - ah - the > start of term?" said Snape, who was barely opening his lips, as though trying > to block Percy out of the conversation. > "I do, Severus," said Dumbledore, and there was something like warning > in his voice. > "It seems - almost impossible - that Black could have entered the > school without inside help. I did express my concerns when you appointed -" > "I do not believe a single person inside this castle would have helped > Black enter it," said Dumbledore, and his tone made it so clear the subject > was closed that Snape didn't reply. > **** > > This exchange makes it obvious that Snape does *not* trust Dumbledore > implicitly, and where Lupin is concerned (assuming that it is, indeed Lupin > to whom Snape was referring), Snape continued to press Dumbledore on the > subject, even after receiving a "warning" look from him. > > So, although the general impression I have from the text is that Snape *does* > trust Dumbledore now, it is clear to me that he doesn't always trust > Dumbledore's *judgement* about things. (We also have examples of where Snape > does not agree with Dumbledore's treatment of Harry). And, after all, at this > point, as far as the Wizarding World (including Dumbledore) is concerned, > Snape was *right* about Sirius' murderous tendencies. This is the guy who, > after setting up Snape to be murdered by a werewolf, went on to betray his > supposed best friends, and then blow up a whole street full of muggles, plus > the heroic (and Dead Sexy . . . NOT! ) Peter Pettigrew. > > So, why does Snape trust Dumbledore at all? It doesn't seem as though Snape > has ever received satisfaction from Dumbledore on the subject of the "prank," > (for example, Dumbledore giving an explanation of the punishment Sirius > received and why he deemed it appropriate), as Snape still obviously has > "issues" surrounding this event. And, at least at this point in the story, > Snape would also believe that Dumbledore's judgement about Sirius was > seriously flawed. He may even feel that if Dumbledore had punished Sirius in > an appropriate manner, things might have been different and the Potters would > not have been killed. > > It makes me wonder if part of the reason Snape now believes Dumbledore so > entirely trustworthy is part of the "matter between Severus Snape and myself" > I quoted above. Certainly Snape must have done something significant to prove > to Dumbledore that he was sincere in returning to the "good" side, but I > think that there must also be some proof on Dumbledore's part - proof that > Dumbledore can be trusted, and that he does value Snape's life. After all, > Snape became a spy "at great personal risk" - why would he do that, unless he > believed that Dumbledore would not, once again, undervalue Snape's safety or, > indeed, his very life (as he did by showing an inappropriate level of concern > after the "prank"). I would be hesitant to risk my life for someone who'd > behaved as Snape perceives Dumbledore to have behaved regarding the "prank." > (IMO, anyway). That someone would have to do something pretty meaningful to > convince me that he or she was, indeed, trustworthy. > > So, I ask again: Why does Snape trust Dumbledore? I can't think of a single > thing in canon that offers an explanation, other than the fact that > Dumbledore vouched for Snape during the Death Eater trials. And I believe > that whatever brought Dumbledore and Snape back together must have happened > before that (or else why would Dumbledore be willing to vouch for Snape?). > > So, I'd love to hear any thoughts and speculations about this. Although I'm > pretty certain that this is one subject upon which we *will* receive > satisfaction eventually from JKR herself. I'm sure the subject of Snape's > trustworthiness and Death Eater Days will come up in future books. Book 5, > preferably. (I am not a patient woman) > > :-) > Wendy > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From melclaros at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 01:29:28 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:29:28 -0000 Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: <80.24a12929.2b2f9f0c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnde1 at a... wrote: > Well, I started thinking . . . maybe we're asking the wrong question. Of > course wondering why Dumbledore trusts Snape is a valid question, but what if > we look at it from the other way around: Just why is it that *Snape* trusts > *Dumbledore*? Aha...Finally. Okay so I'm not paranoid. Is it trust? I wonder. Look at your examples, starting from Dumbledore's treatmemt of Snape after the Prank (snigger--had to get that in). What EVER was done or not about Sirius the painful fact is that Severus was forbidden to discuss the matter further. He was forced to swallow his pride (a rather large mouthful, that!) and watch Sirius Black and co. run roughshod over the rules for the remainder of their time at Hogwarts. There was some sort of threat made to Severus at that time, I can't imagine what it was but there had to be something. Now fast forward to the "present day" relationship between Snape and Dumbledore. For the most part it seems cordial. We are told that Snape "turned spy at great personal risk" so we *assume* that Dumbledore trusts Snape's judgement. BUT we are continously treated to scenes where Severus has tried to warn Dumbledore or express his trepidation about certain situations and it always ends the same way. With the warning look, the warning tone. Or worse yet, a look of amusement! Like in your example: > **** > "Remember the conversation we had, Headmaster, just before - ah - the > start of term?" said Snape, who was barely opening his lips, as though trying > to block Percy out of the conversation. > "I do, Severus," said Dumbledore, and there was something like warning > in his voice. > "It seems - almost impossible - that Black could have entered the > school without inside help. I did express my concerns when you appointed -" > "I do not believe a single person inside this castle would have helped > Black enter it," said Dumbledore, and his tone made it so clear the subject > was closed that Snape didn't reply. We've seen this over and over again. The most poignant example, of course being the scene in POA where Severus "reminds" Dumbledore of Black's murderous bent from their teenage days (as you cited so I won't repeat) Knowing what he did--that Black was innocent-- Dumbledore's response was nothing more than cruel "My memory is as good as ever, Severus." After all, as far as EVERYONE ELSE was concerned Snape was *right* about Black! He didn't know what had been revealed in the SS during his little involuntary nap. Would it have KILLED Dumbledore to take him aside later and let him in on the story over a nice cognac? My question is what has Dumbledore got on Snape. He cleared his name as a Death Eater, we know that. Is there something else? Or has he simply threatened to recant his testimony? Snape sure shuts up in a hurry with the slightest warning look or tone from him. I get very little sense of trust there. I get a sense of fear. Why does Dumbledore trust Snape? Maybe because Snape's scared to death of him. Why does Snape "trust" Dumbledore? His life depends on it? You know, there's this tendency to look at Dumbledore as sort of a Santa Claus character, but he's not. He's tough as nails and mean as a snake when he has to be. He has to be to get where he's gotten to. Look at how he changed when confronting Crouch/Moody in GoF when that ruse was revealed! I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that Snape and Dumbledore are an awful lot alike in the end. My 2c Melpomene From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Dec 17 01:34:45 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:34:45 -0000 Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: <80.24a12929.2b2f9f0c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48413 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnde1 at a... wrote: >> Well, I started thinking . . . maybe we're asking the wrong question. Of > course wondering why Dumbledore trusts Snape is a valid question, but what if > we look at it from the other way around: Just why is it that *Snape* trusts > *Dumbledore*? That's an excellent question, actually, one I haven't really considered before. Thinking about it now, I suspect that by the time Snape decided to leave the Death Eaters, he was at the end of his rope and pretty much out of options. Who *could* he go to? Not to a friend -- all his friends were on Voldemort's side. Not to the Ministry -- given the climate of paranoia and persecution at the time, any DE who came in and confessed would probably be drop-kicked straight into Azkaban, if not Dementor-kissed on the spot. Dumbledore was a major player in the fight against Voldemort, but at the same time he wasn't part of the official law-enforcement structure, and he may have already gone on record with his dislike of Dementors. Snape probably saw him as the least horrible of all available alternatives. Once Snape did come to him, it would've been up to Dumbledore to convince him that he could be trusted. How he did that, I don't know, but it seems he succeeded. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Tue Dec 17 02:51:03 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:51:03 +0000 Subject: Snape as Byronic Hero? Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021217024948.00970440@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 48415 (I just sent this message but for some reason, Yahoo chopped it off halfway through, so I deleted the original and am reposting, in the hope that the whole will make it this time...) I'm not sure how in keeping with a strict interpretation of the Group's charter this is, so I crave your indulgence for a moment. However, I know this will be of interest to many folk so I'm sending it anyway. I've done a search of YahooMort but as usual it's come up empty, although I can't believe this topic hasn't been done to death on a regular and frequent basis. Whilst going through the last several weeks of posts recently to catch up with HPFGU while I was too busy on the movie list to follow events daily, I found at least two descriptions of Snape as Byronic Hero (sorry, I haven't noted who it was). I'll be perfectly honest and admit that I've been scratching my head trying to square that notion for the last couple of days. As I recall my secondary school LitCrit (mainly devoted to European lit., but Byron had a major influence on Romantic writing well outside these islands), the classic Byronic Hero has several attributes, few of which I see in Snape: He's extraordinarily handsome or attractive (often to both sexes), but puts himself outside the reach of the particular person who desires him/whom he desires, isolating himself (both physically and emotionally) - such isolation could be forced upon him; he's wounded or physically disabled in some way, moody or gloomy; he's full of remorse for some act in his past (an act which he sees as far more damaging than it actually was, and which he sees as having been damaging to the object of his desires) but unrepentant despite that remorse (because the act was committed "for the greater good"); he's self-reliant, emotionally, physically and financially. Above all, he is passionate in both emotion and action. His personality is ruled by passion, far, far, above rational thought or consideration. He pursues his own ends according to his self-generated moral code, against all opposition (of which he encounters a great deal!). I'm sure I've forgotten some of the attributes, but those are the most important ones, and the ones which spring to *my* mind when I see that term used. Now, whilst the above description is perfectly apt for a certain character in the Potterverse who shall remain nameless, I hardly see it fitting Snape. Sure, some of the attributes fit a common fanon view, but I see little or no support in actual canon for this. Especially not the first and last listed attributes. JKR goes to great lengths to describe him as physically unattractive as possible without making him into an ogre, and his every action appears calculated and determined. To say that Snape is ruled by his passions just doesn't measure up. There is one possible exception to his calculated nature, namely all his dealings with The Famous Harry Potter. However, even when he loses his cool with Harry and his friends, it's in situations in which, as he sees it (or at least, as much as we can determine that he sees it, IYSWIM), *Harry* is being ruled by emotions and passions rather than cold common sense (Harry & Ron's arrival at Hogwarts at the beginning of CoS, the Shrieking Shack scene, the PoA hospital showdown, etc, etc). Of all the characters in the Potterverse, Snape strikes me as quite possibly the *least* likely to allow his passions to take over (which doesn't necessarily invalidate a view that he's become this way because at some stage in his past he *did* behave recklessly and he's been trying to make up for it ever since). So in just what way can *anyone* see Snape as an archetypal Byronic hero, rather than as the absolute antithesis of such? -- GulPlum AKA Richard, who is hoping that this doesn't degenerate into a repeat of the Sirius -v- Snape Apologists debate, which is what brought on the above reflections in the first place... From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Dec 17 03:18:21 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 03:18:21 -0000 Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48416 Wendy wrote: >> Well, I started thinking . . . maybe we're asking the wrong question. Of > course wondering why Dumbledore trusts Snape is a valid question, but what if > we look at it from the other way around: Just why is it that *Snape* trusts > *Dumbledore*? Well, I'd like to second Marina's remark about how Snape's options were extremely limited once he decided he'd had enough. He couldn't have just walked up to Voldemort and said, "I don't want to be a DE anymore" -- he'd probably be AK'ed on the spot. And I doubt he trusted the Ministry one iota; given Crouch Sr.'s 'get tough on Death Eaters' stance, Snape might have held them in nearly as much contempt as LV's forces; and they'd never trust him. If he didn't find a powerful protector then his only other option would have been to flee the country, and he's too honorable for that. In fact, if he decided he wanted to leave the Death Eaters for philosophical or ethical reasons, if he decided their agenda was just plain wrong, then Dumbledore was the obvious person to go to even if Snape had some personal reservations. After all, Dumbledore isn't just his ex-headmaster, Dumbledore is widely known as the figurehead of the resistance to Voldemort, possibly the most powerful living wizard and the only one Voldemort personally fears. If Snape really wished to combat LV and all he stood for, as I certainly believe he did, then he would have used a little rationality to figure that, even if Dumbledore had been unfair to him in the past, he was still the wisest choice of a benefactor for a recanted DE. Here's a slight twist on a common theory. This list has often suspected that Snape was probably set up as a double agent before Voldemort's fall -- in other words, Voldemort probably thought that Snape was spying on Dumbledore for him when Snape was really leaking information to Dumbledore's advantage. So perhaps this was Voldemort's idea in the first place. Perhaps Voldemort sent Snape to infiltrate Dumbledore's operation (maybe by getting a job at Hogwarts) and only after Snape got to know Dumbledore better and worked with him up close (and more as a colleague than as a student) did he realize that Dumbledore really was, at the end of the day, a guy to be trusted. Maybe he recanted after that. I'm not sure if this is my favorite version of the theory, but it would have made a nice irony if LV had planned a clever infiltration scheme only to have it backfire on him. In any case, if Snape *was* sitting on some useful information about LV at the time he recanted to Dumbledore, he might have figured that his close position in LV's inner circle would have been too valuable for Dumbledore to ruin by turning him over to the MoM. A well-placed spy is a priceless thing. So even if Snape initially went out on a limb by placing his fate in Dumbledore's hands, his trust for him might have grown over time as the plotted together. I've gone on and on in the past about how I think Snape and Dumbledore have a father/son relationship and that this accounts for a great deal of their surface tension and hostility coupled with their underlying trust and mutual respect. I won't repeat it all here, except to stress the way the series emphasizes father/son relationships between many characters, and I feel this is yet another example of that motif. I agree that Dumbledore can be a jerk to Snape sometimes, but pace Melpomene, I can't bring myself to believe that Dumbledore is really manipulating Snape to obey him under threat. I think Snape has a strong sense of honor and he must appreciate Dumbledore's sense of honor as well. I doubt Snape would serve anyone out of fear -- at least not for long. Rather, I think they have more of a symbiotic relationship than that -- I think Snape relies on Dumbledore for a sense of stability and respect and Dumbledore needs Snape's ex-DE insight and willingness to do some of the dirty work for the good guys. I know you've all considered the fact that Dumbledore vouched for Snape in the Pensieve scene, but I'd like to stress that we not underestimate the importance that. I got the impression that Snape would have gone to Azkaban for life if not for Dumbledore, since no one else in the Ministry seems to trust him a bit -- not Crouch Sr., head of the DMLE at the time, nor the real Moody, everyone's favorite Auror. So whatever Snape and Dumbledore went through right after Snape recanted, I believe the fact that Dumbledore saved him from the MoM cemented Snape's trust in him, and keeps it steady even when various werewolves, escaped convicts and bothersome children get in the way. Melpomene, I'd really like to believe that Dumbledore *did* take Snape aside for a cognac and an explanation at some point after the end of PoA -- after letting him calm down for a while. :-) But I'm afraid we'll never find out... ~Porphyria From kaityf at jorsm.com Tue Dec 17 04:11:05 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:11:05 -0600 Subject: Barty Jr as the "one" faithful servant Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021216212500.0312c900@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48417 I know this topic has been discussed before, the last time rather recently. However, I just noticed something at the end of GoF that I don't remember from the last discussion. There has been some speculation that Barty Jr. is the "one faithful servant" that Voldemort refers to in the graveyard scene in GoF. (I think it's Bagman myself...) I just can't see Barty Jr. as the person Voldemort is relying on. He is too unstable, IMO. The scene at the end of GoF, Crouch/Moody's face is described as having his face lit up with "an insane smile." A little later in the same scene, Crouch/Moody is telling Harry that he (C/M) and Voldemort have much in common and he is described as looking "completely insane now." I think he is pretty much insane and much of what he says is just delusional. For instance, he thinks that Voldemort is going to reward him for killing Harry. I'm not sure Voldemort would be totally happy with that since he clearly wants Harry for himself. He also wants Harry to tell him that Voldemort told the Death Eaters that he "...alone remained faithful...prepared to risk everything to deliver to him the one thing he wanted above all..." He later says, under the influence of the veritaserum, that after Bertha told Voldemort how Barty Sr. had kept Barty Jr. imprisoned and therefore unable to go looking for Voldemort, Voldemort would know that Barty Jr. "...was still his faithful servant." I think Barty knows that he is no such thing and that he is simply delusional. He asks Harry if Voldemort had forgiven the Death Eaters who had gone free: "Those treacherous cowards who wouldn't even brave Azkaban for him. The faithless, worthless bits of filth..." I say he's delusional because he himself was not really brave enough to face Azkaban. From the scene in the pensieve, we know that he cried and begged his father not to send him to Azkaban, quite a difference from the LeStranges, who did not cry or beg or deny their support of Voldemort. Barty Jr. also quite readily agreed to the plot to get him out of Azkaban, to switch places with his mother. I think Voldemort is simply using Barty Jr. to get what he wants. He is certainly not above that. He uses Pettigrew too. In fact, Pettigrew has been quite useful, making it possible for him to regain his body. However, that doesn't mean that Voldemort sees Peter as a faithful servant. He calls him cowardly and previously faithless. So while I'll admit there is a possibility that someone other than Bagman could be the missing faithful servant, I'd say it most definitely is not Barty Jr. I think JKR has Barty Jr. saying those things about Voldemort seeing him as such to plant the idea in our heads that it is Barty. Typical misdirection. The only thing we know about the missing DE is that this person has always been faithful and is at Hogwarts. Carol Bainbridge (kaityf at jorsm.com) http://www.lcag.org From voldemort at tut.by Tue Dec 17 04:25:10 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:25:10 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What was V-mort's goal? (was: There is only power) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20443933.20021217062510@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48418 Greetings! > Suzanne wrote: SC> I've always had the belief that Karkaroff was a student SC> at Hogwart's as Voldemort was first rising to power and SC> that Karkaroff, who I would bet was in Slytherin, SC> eagerly embraced Voldemort. Alas, I can't cite any canon SC> to support this belief. "Dear old Hogwarts," he said, looking up at the castle and smiling; his teeth were rather yellow, and Harry noticed that his smile did not extend to his eyes, which remained cold and shrewd. "How good it is to be here, how good..." Well, this can be interpreted either way, but it seems he indeed was a student in Hogwarts. At least this is my IMHO. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From karnasaur at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 05:11:38 2002 From: karnasaur at yahoo.com (Kristjan Arnason) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:11:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Durmstrang In-Reply-To: <1040072160.6218.90650.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20021217051138.69622.qmail@web10402.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48419 probonoprobono wrote: I speculated for some time that Durmstrang was located somewhere in the Balkan States (Albania, Bulgaria, etc.), but there is a comment by Viktor Krum that made me rethink. He mentioned that in the summer there was no nighttime (or was it the other way around? Sorry, don't have the books handy). At any rate, I don't think the Balkans are far north enough to experience the arctic seasons. My geography skills are lacking though, I could be wrong. :D Me: Albania is in Southern Europe, right next to Greece. It is a hot place. Albanians do not wear fur coats or enjoy White Nights in the winter. The same is true of Bulgaria. Durmstrang must be in Northern Europe. By the description given I'd say either Northern Scandanavia (maybe Lapland) or North-western Russia. Or maybe Iceland. Wouldn't it be funny if it was just down the road from Santa's house? K __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Dec 17 06:44:58 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:44:58 -0000 Subject: Snape as Byronic Hero? In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021217024948.00970440@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48420 GulPlum wrote: << Whilst going through the last several weeks of posts recently to catch up with HPFGU while I was too busy on the movie list to follow events daily, I found at least two descriptions of Snape as Byronic Hero (sorry, I haven't noted who it was). I'll be perfectly honest and admit that I've been scratching my head trying to square that notion for the last couple of days. >> Well, here's a web resource on "Characteristics of the Byronic Hero:" [1] http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/ CHARACTE.htm I'll quote from the salient points, many of which overlap yours: --> "He is usually isolated from society as a wanderer or is in exile of some kind." Well, Snape appears to be a social exile. He's exiled from all his old friends; we never see him in a social situation in canon other than meals. He seems like a loner in his present capacity. He might have the respect and even admiration of some of his colleagues, but he doesn't seem to hang out with them at the Three Broomsticks. --> "Often the Byronic hero is moody by nature or passionate about a particular issue." Snape is quite moody (are we arguing that? ) and he's passionate about the issues that push his buttons. Harry obviously constitutes the "particular issue" that sets him off, but Snape also looses it regarding anything that touches on the Marauders or James in particular. He tries to appear cool and calculating, but he looses his temper a little too often to really carry this effect off, IMO. And I'd say his efforts to support Dumbledore's cause show his passion about redeeming himself and fighting for the cause of good. GulPlum says of the Byronic type: << His personality is ruled by passion, far, far, above rational thought or consideration. He pursues his own ends according to his self- generated moral code, against all opposition (of which he encounters a great deal!). >> But remarks of Snape: << ...his every action appears calculated and determined. To say that Snape is ruled by his passions just doesn't measure up. >> Well, Tabouli and Eloise can explain Snape's emotional side better than I can, but I think Snape fits the Byronic bill well enough. We can see his passionate, self-styled pursuit of an end, for instance, in PoA in his surveillance of Lupin. He tries over and over to alert Dumbledore to what he considers suspicious activity, but he gets nowhere. When he pursues Lupin into the Shack he's certainly rushing off in the pursuit of his own code of justice against what could be formidable opposition. When he finally encounters Lupin appearing to be in league with Sirius, nothing can convince him he's misled and he begins a magnificent, overblown, time-wasting rant before he's finally knocked out of commission. Finally, in desperation, he outs Lupin because a) Lupin's a dangerous werewolf, b) because he believes that Lupin was aiding and abetting a notorious murderer to gain access to Harry and c) because he can't get over his very deep-seated anger at Lupin for the Prank. That, to me, suggests a whopping combination of untamed emotion coupled with a self-generated sense of justice. Furthermore, even if Snape imagines he's trying to cure Harry of behaving without common sense, as GulPlum points out, I don't feel that this rules out that Snape can also behave with irrational emotion. His obsession with Harry is certainly over-emotional. In fact, I find it quite noteworthy that Snape often accuses Harry of qualities he's guilty of himself, such as arrogance and foolhardiness. Back to quoting from "Characteristics of the Byronic Hero:" --> "He also has emotional and intellectual capacities, which are superior to the average man." Well, we certainly get the idea that Snape has intellectual skills regarding potions, curses and the Dark Arts in general, as well as linguistically/poetic ones. Here we see the Byronic hero can be both emotional and intellectual; these don't cancel each other out. --> "These heightened abilities force the Byronic hero to be arrogant, confident, abnormally sensitive, and extremely conscious of himself." Snape displays the odd combination that the Byronic type encompasses: he's both extremely arrogant and so sensitive about himself that it smacks of insecurity. For instance, he's very touchy about appearing to be vulnerable. He reacts irrationally and starts screaming when Harry discovers his injured leg in PS/SS. In GoF, he reacts with shame in front of Fake!Moody at what he seems to consider his own display of weakness in clutching his arm. He loathes having his authority questioned and reacts viciously when his students come near doing so. And this proud/insecure dichotomy explains his reaction to the Prank: he's humiliated because he's too arrogant to want to imagine himself as needing rescue, but he honors his debt to James anyway. Yet Snape really is confident of his magical abilities and his bravery and never thinks twice before rushing off in the face of danger. --> "Sometimes, this is to the point of nihilism resulting in his rebellion against life itself." We get the idea he might have been more like that when he was young; now, the fact that he's willing to risk his life for Dumbledore at least gives him the same sort of sweeping drama and death-defiance. --> "In one form or another, he rejects the values and moral codes of society and because of this he is often unrepentant by society's standards." Snape is unrepentant when it comes to the snotty and cruel way he normally acts, as with his students. One gets the sense he's seen too much real cruelty to feel guilty over a few sarcastic remarks. This might be a petty form of Byronic rebellion, but so be it. On the other hand: --> "Often the Byronic hero is characterized by a guilty memory of some unnamed sexual crime. Due to these characteristics, the Byronic hero is often a figure of repulsion, as well as fascination." Well, if we substitute "stint with the Death Eaters" for his past crime, he fits the mold. He does appear to be very guilty over that, and the fact that he obviously was a criminal with a working knowledge of the Dark Arts lends him this aura as an object of repulsion and fascination. I'm sure there are legitimate ways in which Snape doesn't adhere to the Byronic ideal. Maybe he is too calculating. But I'd say that the way in which the Byronic archetype operates along the conflicted axes of guilt/defiance and intellect/passion suits Snape well enough to make the comparison. Of course this all depends on what characteristics readers privilege the most. To me, Snape's salient Byronic qualities include his moodiness, hypersensitivity, brilliance, tendency towards overblown, dramatic gestures, arrogance, cynicism and sense of remorse and regret over a dark past. Sure we can argue about the details, but the overall effect remains. As to whether he's handsome enough to qualify as a Byronic hero... well... beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect there are a more than a few females out there for whom a large hooked nose and hair in need of shampoo do not serve as an effective deterrent. If JKR did intend to make Snape perfectly un-sexy, she failed. She would have been better off to describe him like Peter: fat, bald and squeaky-voiced like a eunuch. Besides, since Byronic heroes are often a source of repulsion as well as fascination, I'd say Snape's exotic dark looks and questionable hygiene put him squarely in the repulsive-but-fascinating category. As to that other S-man -- I don't see Sirius as being quite Dark enough to be a convincing Byronic hero. He's close, but not quite morally ambiguous and scary enough. I guess by some definitions, the Byronic hero is exceedingly guilty over a past crime he overestimates his culpability in, but the Byronic hero can also run to the Dark end of the spectrum as with Milton's Satan in _Paradise Lost_. Sirius defenders are welcome to argue with me, but I always saw him as only being guilty of foolishness. The Prank, for instance, is exactly the sort of colossally dumb stunt that a 16 year old boy would try. But it wasn't eeeeevil, IMO. Similarly, his reliance on Peter as the Secret Keeper showed an error in judgment, but obviously Sirius never intended any harm to come to James and Lily. His heart was in the right place. On the other hand, Snape's joining the Death Eaters and serving with them was truly wrong. Snape is most likely guilty of real crimes, with real blood on his hands. This, for me, ups the stakes quite a bit and puts him more firmly in the realm of larger- than-life Byronic melodrama. He's not just a bad boy, he's made enormous mistakes, and that contributes to the unsettling sense of darkness and moral ambiguity that I feel Snape embodies far more than Sirius. Of course, Byronic heroes usually aren't frustrated schoolteachers, but I covered that aspect in another post. ;-) ~Porphyria [1] From "A Hypertext on Charlotte Bronte's _Jane Eyre_" http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/ TITLESPA.htm From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 17 06:34:53 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:34:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Durmstrang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48421 In a message dated 17/12/2002 00:48:19 Eastern Standard Time, karnasaur at yahoo.com writes: > . He mentioned that in the summer there was > no nighttime (or was it the other way around? Sorry, > don't have the books handy). At any rate, I don't > think the Balkans are far north enough to experience > the arctic seasons. My geography skills are lacking > though, I could be wrong. :D > > Me: > > Could it be a place such as Greenland or Alaska in the United States? There is limited darkness in summer in these places... but I,too, am somewhat geographically challengened without a globe... I can pinpoint Scotland and the US only because I have spent my life in the two.... Obviously, we are looking for a far, FAR north area...... Rereading GOB as I type, Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 07:50:04 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:50:04 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000903155112.00756ba8@popmail.dircon.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Neil Ward wrote: > At 11:46 09/03/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >>It's incorrect to say Durmstrang is "NOT in Russia". Durmstrang > >> *could* be in Russia, part of which, as Firebolt said, is in > >>Europe. Murmansk, for example, in northern Russia, is just west > >> of the northern tips of Norway and Finland (in the vicinity of Lappland). > > Neil bboy_mn comments: The area around Murmansk, Russia is the most perfect area for Durmstang. It's the only place I've found that meets all the qualification. 1.) It's in Scandinavia. There is a large body of land to the right (east) of Finland that includes a large northern peninsula and at it's northern most part you will find the city of Murmansk. It's bounded on the west by Finland and on the east by the Beloye More (Beloye Sea, formerly known as the White Sea), and bounded to the north by the Barentsevo More (Barents Sea). 2.) It has large hills/small mountains, heavily forested, and has many lakes. It has few rail lines, and very few major roads, and many roads that don't qualify as more than trails. It is also sparsely populated. It's above the Arctic Circle and ends near the 70th degree latitude. 3.) with proximity to many oceans and seas, the likelihood of Durmstrand arriving by ship is good. (White Sea, Barents Sea, Gulf of Finland, many large lakes, and navagatable rivers.) Given that it is part of Russia and was part of USSR, it probably has a some cultural influences from the Eastern block countries. Now it could be farther south than Murmansk and still meet the qualification as outline in JLR's books. Near Kandalaksha which is a port city on the White Sea might be a good candidate. As you move farther south than Petrozavodsk (around the 61 degree latitude, the land starts to flatten out and becomes less forested. For reference, Glasgow, Scotland is around the 56 degree latitude.) It's only my opinion, but of all the places suggested over a long period of time, this is the only location that satisfies me. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 09:35:56 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:35:56 -0000 Subject: Nicknames In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48423 It is quite common in boys schools in the UK just to refer to chaps by there surname which covers the Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle thing as well as the fact that Harry doesn't like them. In canon the teachers seem to use this method too. As for shortening and nicknames then again surnames or some variation of them are often used. It does seem odd that in the Quidditch scene there are no nicknames as with sports like rugby this often happens. Ron's name is already shortened and Harry rolls off the tongue nicely. Dean and Seamus are difficult to shorten, although I would have expected Neville to be Nev perhaps. Hermione does not seem the type to shorten names herself and perhaps with Lavender we could leave well alone! Diane --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "louise_keithly " wrote: > Hi > > I have spend the past week reading the HP books for the first time. > > I am now half way through P o A, and find myself hooked on the > adventures of Harry and his pals. > > I do have something niggling me a little though. > > Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by > their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. > > Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do > when they meet is assign each other nickames. > > Am I the only one who finds this odd? > > Louise. From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 17 08:53:32 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 03:53:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Durmstrang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48424 Just one thing..... I think it is safe to say that the school need not be based on accent--- think about it... although Madame Maxime has a French accent, Karakoff seems to have no accent, or for those outside of the UK,a British accent..... This tiny little fact could provide us with evidence that Durmstrang could be in ANY of the regions of the world with Nightless Days..... of which there are a few...... Just a point... a very tired, Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Dec 17 09:56:35 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:56:35 -0000 Subject: Nicknames In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021216215117.009c1110@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48425 Louise Keithly wrote: >>>Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do when they meet is assign each other nickames.<<< Haven't we forgotten the marauders? Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs seem to me to be nicknames. Gulplum replied:- >>>> "Scarhead" during the Quidditch match. Perhaps this was a deliberate touch by Kloves to set the Slyths apart from our virtuous Gryffs and have them engaging in cruel name-calling, but I'd certainly expect more of it in the books.<<<< This is actually canon, it's in CoS. (Sorry, my books aren't available to tell you the page number). > >> >Generally speaking, Brits don't use abbreviated names much - I know several "Charleses", but only one "Charlie" (who happens to be American...); several "Richards" but no "Dicks", several "Jameses" but no "Jims"; several "Stephens/Stevens" but only one "Steve".<<< I'd actually have to disagree here. I don't know how we compare to the States, but large numbers of my friends abbreviate their names. I know only Steves, and no Stevens. Several Richs (and to be fair, Richards). Ali (and yes, I also answer to the name of Alison or Al and briefly had a couple of nicknames at school which I was not fond of) From wynnde1 at aol.com Tue Dec 17 10:35:35 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:35:35 EST Subject: Who is the "faithful servant" (was Barty Jr as the "one" faithful servant) Message-ID: <127.1d4a67ac.2b3057f7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48427 Carol wrote: "There has been some speculation that Barty Jr. is the "one faithful servant" that Voldemort refers to in the graveyard scene in GoF. (I think it's Bagman myself). I just can't see Barty Jr. as the person Voldemort is relying on. He is too unstable, IMO." "I think Voldemort is simply using Barty Jr. to get what he wants. So while I'll admit there is a possibility that someone other than Bagman could be the missing faithful servant, I'd say it most definitely is not Barty Jr. I think JKR has Barty Jr. saying those things about Voldemort seeing him as such to plant the idea in our heads that it is Barty. Typical misdirection. The only thing we know about the missing DE is that this person has always been faithful and is at Hogwarts." Now me: I agree with you, Carol, about Barty *not* being the "faithful" servant at Hogwarts, and I like your reasoning about why it's not Barty. I don't think it's Bagman, though, because he wasn't really *at* Hogwarts. Yes, he travelled there from time to time for Triwizard events, but he isn't really part of the Hogwarts staff or a permanent fixture there. I do think it's very likely that he is evil - maybe not a full-fledged Death Eater, but I think all that stuff about gambling debts to the Goblins was misdirection on JKR's part to make us *stop* suspecting him by the end of GoF. I don't trust the man, and think he is *very* bad news. And for those who say he's too stupid to cause any real trouble, well, pretending to be stupid could be a really good way of getting people to underestimate him, couldn't it? So, who do *I* think is the faithful servant? Well, on the days when I believe that Minerva McGonagall is Ever So Evil, of course it's her. She is perfectly positioned to be of great service to Voldemort, and has access to Dumbledore and to Harry due to her position as Head of Gryffindor House. And there's LOTS of canon to show that she's evil. *Really* there is! (See posts 39470, 38783, and 39495 for starters). Another option, is that the "faithful" servant is Snape. No, I don't believe that Snape has really been faithful to Voldemort, but I think there it *is* possible that Voldemort believes he has been. Voldemort may think Severus has been *his* (Voldie's) double-agent, and I don't think the events in Harry's first year (with Quirrellmort) would have necessarily given Voldemort cause to doubt Snape. (This has been argued admirably on the list by others, so I won't repeat it all here). And, if I'm right, and Voldemort still does believe Snape is faithful, this opens the door to Snape's return as a spy. Which I think would make for some very interesting reading, and possibly lots of pain and more angst, and maybe even a moment or two of temptation for our poor darling Severus! :-) Wendy (Who would like to apply for membership in the Order of the Flying Hedgehogs, after realising that she loves suspecting *lots* of characters as Ever So Evil, and would actually be pretty happy if most of them turn out to really *be* evil. Bagman, Fudge, McGonagall and Ron, for sure. Evil!Sirius would be fine, although unlikely and somewhat redundant, after the "prank" . She also is really impressed with the Evil!Lupin canons, but does hope that he's not evil, as *that* might just break her heart.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 12:36:54 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:36:54 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Binding magical contracts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48428 And here's another thing...the WW seems to sort of and sort of not recognize an age of capacity/age of adulthood dividing line. In canon, there is a restriction against the use of underage magic; and you have to learn to Apparate and get a license for it. Those are two examples of age-based controls. However, Dumbledore speaks gravely of the GoF exercise as a binding magical contract. I initially thought one of the reasons for an age limit was to have an informed age of capacity/age of consent. Because in this country, at least, a minor *cannot* make a binding contract; his or her parents must make contracts on his or her behalf,and *they* are the responsible parties. However, once you hit 18, blam, overnight you're assumed to have learned everything you know to avoid signing bad contracts. :-) Felinia > >In message , Christopher >Nuttall writes > >Simon"What form does this obligation take? (I assume it's nothing as > >prosaic as a Muggle law court!) What would have happened to Harry if he > >had simply refused to take part in the tournament?" > > > >I think its just an 'if you sign, you must do' type of agreement. > >OK, but who or what would make Harry take part if he absolutely and >adamantly refused? The contract is described as a "binding magical >contract", so I don't think the obligation to take part is being >enforced in the same way that a Muggle agreement might be enforced. If >so, wouldn't there have to be another party who demanded for the >agreement to be enforced? But nobody wanted (or could openly say that >they wanted) Harry to take part in the Triwizard Tournament. Dumbledore >said that he couldn't see how to resolve the problem without Harry >entering the tournament; if there were a 'diplomatic' non-magical >solution (corresponding to a non-magical way of enforcing the >agreement), then surely Dumbledore would have tried it. Surely this >implies that there is some degree of *magical* compulsion involved. IF >this conclusion follows, then how is this any different from using the >Imperius curse on somebody, especially if you can become bound by a >contract that you never agreed to? > >Chris: > >If Harry had not wanted to take part, he would have had to convince > >people that he had not managed to get round the charm defending the > >goblet. > >But Harry did manage to persuade a number of people that he hadn't got >around the charm. How many people would he have to persuade? Do you >think that the agreement is enforced on him by the people who think that >he entered? Quite a lot of those people would have been only too happy >to prevent Harry from entering, so why would they be enforcing the >contract? > >-- >Simon Nickerson >"I went on the Underground - " >"Really?" said Mr Weasley eagerly. "Were there escapators?" > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 17 10:40:55 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:40:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nicknames Message-ID: <12a.1dadf0ce.2b305937@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48429 In a message dated 17/12/2002 04:57:57 Eastern Standard Time, Ali at zymurgy.org writes: > Louise Keithly wrote: > > >>>Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) > by their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. > Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do > when they meet is assign each other nickames.<<< > > Haven't we forgotten the marauders? Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and > Prongs seem to me to be nicknames. These, at least to me, appear to be secret names- having to with the Anamagi and Moony, aka, Remus Lupin's Werewolf transformation personality.... It would make sense, as \James, Sirius and Peter learn to become Anamgi illegally, that they would adopt nicknames----- as thus would Remus to protect his werewolf identity... Under these circumstances nicknames would be appropriate..... however, oly were it that names were shared betweenn students in the same class year or if a few select learned to transform to anamagus, would nicknames be necessary------- Note Sirius, James, Peter, and Lupin, undoubtably, imho, claimed these names so that no one would know THEY were runningh amok when they spoke. ;) - Snuffles who is beyond exhausted [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 11:32:31 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 03:32:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD KNEW about the Map (was: Snape and the Map) In-Reply-To: <122.1c0b4e42.2b2f8bd2@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021217113231.61386.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48430 This point of interest has never struck me as important before, but after reading all these messages, I feel inclined to add my two cents. First: Why Snape did not confiscate the map from Lupin's office. The Severus Snape we all know (and love), would definitely have pocketed that map when he saw it on Lupin's desk, no doubt. BUT, we have to keep in mind, that Snape was not himself that night. Look at his behavior in the Shrieking Shack, he has gone even beyond his usual heights of unreasonableness. Can't you just see him with the map in his hands? The surge of wonder and excitement he must have felt when he saw it? Finally he was going to get even, prove himself right, show everyone he was not "the fool" that he was made into years before. And then can't you see him just dropping the map and running full speed towards the Whomping WIllow? Once he saw Lupin dissapear off the map towards Hogsmeade, there would be nothing else to see right then. And I do not think he was in the state of mind to be so forward-thinking and keep the map. Did Snape tell DD of the map in PoA? I think he did. He most likely did not just leave it out of his story. Snape is most likely under the impression that "Moony" gave Harry the map. So, now DD knows that there is a magical object created in part by James, that has been handed down by one of James' best friends to Harry. Would DD confiscate the map? I do not think so. He probably believes that Harry has a right to it. Obviously the map was just MADE for sneaking-about, and rule-breaking, but then, who gave Harry the Invisibility Cloak? Why Snape Didn't Tell DD that Moody Had the Map I never really thought this through. But I can agree with Eloise that Snape may have thought it was "in safe hands"with Moody. Plus, if Snape told DD about the map the year before, and Snape now sees that Harry is still in posession of it, do you think he would run to DD and say, "You know that map that you let Potter keep? Well now you best old buddy Moody, who you have given permission to search my office, and basically do whatever he wants, well he has it, and I really think you should do something about it?" Plus, Snape does not know that Moody keeps the map, does he? He probably thinks that Moody returned it to Harry. And Harry's possession of the Map in GoF (after Snape told DD about it in PoA) probably tells Snape that Harry is allowed to have it. yes, Snape is not above trying to go out and his own and take it from Harry, but it would be pointless to go to DD. "Map?" said Dumbledore quickly, "What map is this?" Is there anything in this comment that tells us DEFINITIVELY that DD has no knowledge of the Marauder's Map? I do not think so. In any case, DD has heard no mention of the map in a year, and he certainly did not expect it to turn up in the hands of Barty Crouch Jr. He very quickly demands to know what map this is, but when Crouch tells him, there is no other comment of surprise by DD, or any later questioning of Harry about the map. So my only question is: Where is the map now? I think Dumbledore has it. But I really have no idea. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 12:12:26 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 04:12:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Durmstrang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021217121226.12825.qmail@web14611.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48431 srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote: <> No it can't, because we know that Durmstrang is in Europe. It is one of the three major European schools of magic, and it was in Hermione's book, An Appraisal of Magical Education in Europe. Plus, there is a good chance that Durmstrang is unplottable, a concept I have a hard time with. Does that mean that it has a definite geographic location (ie, Northern Russia) but can't be pinpointed exacly by latitude or longitude, or can it be COMPLETELY off the map, and all of our geographical knowledge comes to naught? ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dorigen at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 15:04:43 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:04:43 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's Durmstrang? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48432 >This therefore begs a completely different question: why does Krum, from >southern Europe, attend a school in northern Europe? The Muggle cultures >involved have very little in common, and it's likely that the wizarding >cultures would be equally incompatible. It seems likely that there is a >sizable wizarding community in southern Europe: enough to warrant >maintaining a school. So I repeat: why does Krum attend a school such a >distance from his home turf? Just because it's likely that there's a sizable wizarding community in southern Europe (and I think so too) doesn't mean there's a school there. Hogwarts seems to be it for the United Kingdom; perhaps Durmstrang is the closest school to Krum's home. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From bobafett at harbornet.com Tue Dec 17 10:42:46 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:42:46 -0800 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long) References: Message-ID: <003401c2a5b9$0a5b8ce0$59edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48433 Where to start 1)Person to die in next book? -I gotta go with the obvious choice, Colin Creevy 2)hook up's -again the obvious -Hermione & Ron -Harry & Genny (perhaps book 6 or 7) -Dumbledore & Mcgonagall (end of book 7) -Hagrid & Maxine (already appear to be) -Snape & Draco (haha not really) 3)Neville's Future -His parent's will regain their sanity -He no longer is a forgetfull bafoon -He discovers great talents within -Has to make a big choice between good and evil -Goe's after the Malfoy's (under the assumption Lucious is paying to keep them under charms to keep them insane) -Trevor (His Toad given to him by his uncle) Will have an ability that helps later on -Finally shows why he's in Gryffindore 4)Ron's Future -Finally declares his love for Hermione -Continues to bicker with Hermione dispite his feelings towards her -Is injured (in book 5) Leaving Harry and Hermione To save the day and him -Joins the quidditch team as the new keeper -Stays deathly afraid of spiders (hehe) 5)Hermione's Future -Is glad Ron finally declares his feelings for her and likewise begins a romantic relationship with him -Still hits the books like mad but lightens up on rules -Finds out more about her half cat -Becomes a temp teacher (perhaps book 6 or 7) -Makes malfoy pay more for calling her a mudblood (*SLAP*) -Helps Neville with his transformation from the forgetfull Neville to Heroic Neville -Finally completes reading "Hogwart's-A History" (HEHE) -Helps Filch with his poor wizarding skills 6)Harry's Future -Goes back to the Dursley's to find them being exceedingly kind to him (Not due to what he did to his aunt but because he can save them from poverty) -Meets his Neighbor Miss Figgs who gives him summerschool in Protection from the Dark Arts -Force's the dursley's to tell him all about his mother and father -Finds out he is the heir to Gryffindore -Finds out Dumbledore is too (making them relatives) -Goes to live in his mother and fathers home (Godric's Hollow) -Discovers his parents where private tutors for "OLD MAGIC" -Finds out what the story is behind Peeves (someone's got to its killin me) -Captures Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew) and clears the name of his godfather (Serius Black) Nearly dying in the prosses (This is where i think collin dies saving harry) -Eventually killing off He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (not dying in the process as some may believe) 7)Hagrid's Future -Starts private lessons through the school to finish the studies he started at hogwarts 50 years previous when he was wrongly expelled and forbidden to do magic (by the Ministry of Magic i assume) -Finds many more wonderous but dangerous creatures to keep as pets (duh) -Wed's Madam Maxine -With the aid of Madam Maxine convinces the giants to side with good this time 8)Snape -We discover he was a vampire when he was a death eater -Turned to be a spy for dumbledore due to dumbledore helping him either cure him of it or relieve him of many of its symptoms -still rides Neville hard along with Harry Ron and Hermione but none as much as Neville -Gathers information through his loyal friends who are still death eaters (people that fear Vold. too much to quit) -helps Harry learn more to protect him (Doing it rather "Snape" like though) -Almost looses his life protecting Harry Ron or Hermione or all 3 -We find out he befriends Draco to turn him on his father 9)Filch -Becomes a wizzard with Hermione's help -Stops being a foul grinch -Finally has proof to show dumbledore peeves needs to be fed to the basalisk ;) -After finding out about peeves from Dumbledore goes easy on Peeves -We find out about his past and why he is such a grouch (aside from the fact he was a failed wizzard) -We find out about Mrs. Norris his cat (I think she's a old love of his turned to a cat and is infact why he is such a snot) -Finally returns mrs. Norris to human form 10)Mcgonagall -Declares after many long years her love for Dumbledore before its too late -Leaves Hogwarts for a time to work with the "Others" Dumbledore summoned at the end of book 4 (The old crowd) -Places Hermione to instruct her class while she's gone -Gives Harry 50 points for being such a good little boy (haha) 11)Dumbledore -Returns Mcgonagall's hidden love and carry's on a relationship with her -We find out he IS Nickolas Flamelle and created his Albus name cause he somehow knew he would be needed at hogwarts -I believe he has true abilities to see the future but lets it take its course guiding Harry and others along the way trying not to disturb the natural course of things -We find out Harry's Parents were the Keepers of the Sorc. Stone/Phil. Stone That was given to them by Dumbledore and thats how they made their money that they left to Harry (more into my idea of dumbledore being Hrry's relative) -Battle's Politicly with the ministry of magic until he finally gets all the proof he needs to set them strait and rid the Ministry of Magic of all the Death Eaters 12)General info -We find out James Potter is realated to Dumbledore and Lilly Potter is related to Voldemort -Fluffy has puppies -Fred and George do open their joke shop and it does Smashingly -Fred and George do buy ron his New dress robes as harry request's but they first give him a robe with all sorts of joke enchantments messing with him first -Fred and George do so well they help their family with their money troubles -Arthur Weasley quits the Ministry of Magic due to their conflict with Dumbledore -Percy Weasley doesn't quit the Ministry of Magic But does inform them (unhappily) with information to help them -Death Eaters within the Ministry of Magic try to conver Percy to become a Death Eater -Aurthur Weasley raids the Malfoy house and finds the hidden chamber and finds all the Dark Art's items and all the information he needs to discredit the Malfoy's and send them off into hiding -Doby aids the cause by setting up a house elf underground infomation line between house elves who believe in the greater good -Hermione gives up on saving the House Elves (You can lead a horse to water...) -Harry finds a book or an item his parents left him giving him the WHOLE story of what their life was like and their battles to destroy evil and voldemort -At the end of book 7 Dumbledore retires with Mrs. Mcgonagull and A while after Harry returns to become the headmaster of Hogwarts ;) -Harry looks into the mirror and see's him exactly as he is well thats all i can think of its a lot of reading prolly too much for most but these are my thought's and hopes i hope you enjoy the thought' as i do BoBaFeTT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dorigen at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 15:10:04 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:10:04 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Durmstrang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48434 My husband and I were discussing a book called "The Golden Compass," which I'm sure many of you have read, and my hair stood on end as I realized that FINLAND 1) is in Northern Europe and very cold 2) has mountains, lakes, and large stretches of seclusion 3) is partly inside the Arctic Circle 4) has a strong tradition of witches and witchcraft Janet Anderson (who admits that she did not get out the atlas and look to see where Albania actually was, but was merely noting a pattern of references to the place in canon) * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." >From: Kristjan Arnason >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Durmstrang >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:11:38 -0800 (PST) > >probonoprobono wrote: > >I speculated for some time that Durmstrang was located >somewhere in the Balkan States (Albania, Bulgaria, >etc.), but there is a comment by Viktor Krum that made >me rethink. He mentioned that in the summer there was >no nighttime (or was it the other way around? Sorry, >don't have the books handy). At any rate, I don't >think the Balkans are far north enough to experience >the arctic seasons. My geography skills are lacking >though, I could be wrong. :D > >Me: > >Albania is in Southern Europe, right next to Greece. >It is a hot place. Albanians do not wear fur coats or >enjoy White Nights in the winter. The same is true of >Bulgaria. Durmstrang must be in Northern Europe. By >the description given I'd say either Northern >Scandanavia (maybe Lapland) or North-western Russia. >Or maybe Iceland. > >Wouldn't it be funny if it was just down the road from >Santa's house? > >K > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.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, 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From raunistar at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 15:53:51 2002 From: raunistar at yahoo.com (raunistar ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:53:51 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > My husband and I were discussing a book called "The Golden Compass," which > I'm sure many of you have read, and my hair stood on end as I realized that > FINLAND > > 1) is in Northern Europe and very cold > 2) has mountains, lakes, and large stretches of seclusion > 3) is partly inside the Arctic Circle > 4) has a strong tradition of witches and witchcraft I think Durmstrang may be connected to the sea, because they arrive to Hogwarts by ship. Now, the only part of Finland that is north enough and has high mountains, is Lapland, and especially northern Lapland. That part of Finland is, however, not connected to sea. So, in my opinion, Durmstrang could be better situated in north-eastern Russia, particularly Murmansk area (as some other person has already pointed out), because that area meets all the criteria you describe AND has an access to sea AND has a culture (at least Muggle culture) closely connected to the Eastern Europe (Bulgaria etc.). Even the name Karkaroff sounds like a Russian name to me. Like Finland (especially Lapland), north-eastern Russia has some old folk tradition of witchcraft, shamans and such. raunistar From raunistar at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 15:57:08 2002 From: raunistar at yahoo.com (raunistar ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:57:08 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang (one correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48436 One correction: when I said north-eastern Russia, I meant of course north-western Russia. I need a compass myself :) raunistar --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "raunistar " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" > wrote: > > My husband and I were discussing a book called "The Golden Compass," > which > > I'm sure many of you have read, and my hair stood on end as I > realized that > > FINLAND > > > > 1) is in Northern Europe and very cold > > 2) has mountains, lakes, and large stretches of seclusion > > 3) is partly inside the Arctic Circle > > 4) has a strong tradition of witches and witchcraft > > I think Durmstrang may be connected to the sea, because they arrive to > Hogwarts by ship. Now, the only part of Finland that is north enough > and has high mountains, is Lapland, and especially northern Lapland. > That part of Finland is, however, not connected to sea. So, in my > opinion, Durmstrang could be better situated in north-eastern Russia, > particularly Murmansk area (as some other person has already pointed > out), because that area meets all the criteria you describe AND has an > access to sea AND has a culture (at least Muggle culture) closely > connected to the Eastern Europe (Bulgaria etc.). Even the name > Karkaroff sounds like a Russian name to me. Like Finland (especially > Lapland), north-eastern Russia has some old folk tradition of > witchcraft, shamans and such. > > raunistar From voldemort at tut.by Tue Dec 17 16:22:27 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:22:27 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Durmstrang (one correction) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9911964884.20021217182227@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48437 Greetings! > raunistar wrote: >> I think Durmstrang may be connected to the sea, because >> they arrive to Hogwarts by ship. Now, the only part of >> Finland that is north enough and has high mountains, is >> Lapland, and especially northern Lapland. That part of >> Finland is, however, not connected to sea. So, in my >> opinion, Durmstrang could be better situated in >> north-eastern Russia, particularly Murmansk area (as some >> other person has already pointed out), because that area >> meets all the criteria you describe AND has an access to >> sea AND has a culture (at least Muggle culture) closely >> connected to the Eastern Europe (Bulgaria etc.). Even the >> name Karkaroff sounds like a Russian name to me. Like >> Finland (especially Lapland), north-eastern Russia has >> some old folk tradition of witchcraft, shamans and such. rryc> One correction: when I said north-eastern Russia, I rryc> meant of course north-western Russia. I need a compass rryc> myself :) 1. North-eastern Russia has shamans traditions as well. ;) 2. But of course it has far weaker relation to the European culture. :) 3. Actually, Durmstrang can be anywhere from Lapland to Murmansk. Though if Durmstrang is indeed in Russia and if it was founded around the Xth - XIIth centuries, then Durmstrang should be not a German name, but a Scandinavian one. 4. Karkaroff sounds perfectly like a Russian name. 5. I will not give my alethiometer to you. ;-p Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Tue Dec 17 16:41:54 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:41:54 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's Durmstrang? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021217160310.009672a0@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 48438 At 15:04 17/12/02 +0000, Janet Anderson wrote: > >This therefore begs a completely different question: why does Krum, from > >southern Europe, attend a school in northern Europe? The Muggle cultures > >involved have very little in common, and it's likely that the wizarding > >cultures would be equally incompatible. It seems likely that there is a > >sizable wizarding community in southern Europe: enough to warrant > >maintaining a school. So I repeat: why does Krum attend a school such a > >distance from his home turf? > >Just because it's likely that there's a sizable wizarding community in >southern Europe (and I think so too) doesn't mean there's a school there. >Hogwarts seems to be it for the United Kingdom; perhaps Durmstrang is the >closest school to Krum's home. This is something I forgot to mention in my previous post: to give US residents with limited knowledge of European geography some kind of comparison, to confuse Albania with the Arctic circle, and the social, cultural, geographical (and climactic!) differences involved, is akin to confusing Nebraska and Alaska (without the benefit of similar-sounding names)... And that's not taking into account a whole new language. Comparing the whole of Europe (or the USA) to the length of the UK is frankly just a bit disingenuous. After all, we know of Beauxbatons (presumably somewhere in France), and the distance between that and Hogwarts is little more than half the distance between Krum's home and Durmstrang's probable location. And the cultural shift is even smaller. So my doubts remain: why does Krum travel 2,000 miles to go to school? And on a separate but related issue, Angela asked: >There is a good chance that Durmstrang is unplottable, a concept I have a >hard time with. Does that mean that it has a definite geographic location >(ie, Northern Russia) but can't be pinpointed exacly by latitude or >longitude, or can it be COMPLETELY off the map, and all of our >geographical knowledge comes to naught? The way I see "unplottablity", it's not about some kind of "alternative geography" or parallel dimension. Buildings and other artifacts could be fitted on Muggle maps, *if* they could be identified. The issue as I see it is that unplottable areas are "shielded", rather than non-existent, to Muggles. For instance, the main defence for the QWC pitch was that any Muggle coming close would suddenly remember they need to be elsewhere. "Unplottablity" therefore comes not from the place not being identfiable in terms of latitude and longitude, but from its contours being unidentifiable, and thus there is no object to be plotted. -- GulPlum AKA Richard, who's prepared to admit to being a bit surprised by the level of repetition in posts on this subject... From bobafett at harbornet.com Tue Dec 17 10:54:10 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:54:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Actual lines from Book Five :-) References: Message-ID: <004201c2a5ba$a1d9c9a0$59edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48439 ----- Original Message ----- From: pickle_jimmy To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:58 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Actual lines from Book Five :-) Ok, I haven't seen book five, but I thought it would be fun to look through what we *do* have and find lines that have a "better than even" chance of being in book five. Pickle (putting out the call for additions to this list) Jimmy ================================================ =================================================== my additions: Hagrid will say at least twice "I shouldn't have told you that" Hermione will say at least one, While opening a book "Am i the only one who has read Hogwarts-A History" Ron would say, "Fred and George got me new Dress Robes but they had a charm to make me shorter" Harry will say, "But Hagrid, Isn't that dangerous?" Draco will say to hermione, "Filthy mudblood" and recieve another slap Dumbledore will undoubtedly say "the forbidden forest is strictly off limits" hehe easy one Snape, "Potter! What are you doing?" "BoBaFeTT" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From julia at thequiltbug.com Tue Dec 17 14:05:06 2002 From: julia at thequiltbug.com (juliamc) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:05:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Actual lines from Book Five :-) Message-ID: <20021217060506.10643.h007.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48440 On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, "pickle_jimmy " wrote: > > Ok, I haven't seen book five, but I thought it would be > fun to look > through what we *do* have and find lines that have a > "better than > even" chance of being in book five. > Oh, great fun! "Five points from Gryffindor," growled Snape. "bloody hell!" said Ron... "Good heavens!" said Professor McGonagall... Harry put on the Invisibility Cloak... Julia (nervously making her first post!) devoted H/H shipper! From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Tue Dec 17 17:09:12 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:09:12 -0000 Subject: Where's Durmstrang? In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021217160310.009672a0@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48441 --- In HPforGrownups, GulPlum wrote: [snip] Greetings, An old subject surfacing again - I first posted on it in November 2000, at post 5961. [snip] > After all, we know of Beauxbatons (presumably somewhere in > France), [snip] JKR said that Beauxbatons probably is located in Southern France at the same occasion where she stated that Durmstrang probably is located in Northern Scandinavia, at a bookreading in Glasgow sometime in late 2000 or early 2001. > So my doubts remain: why does Krum travel 2,000 miles to go > to school? Well, those 2000 miles need not take as long to cross for Viktor Krum as they would for a muggle. At any rate, it is possible that Durmstrang was not originally founded where it is presently located. The cultural hints that are given about Durmstrang would have fit very well with a location in Poland or the Baltic states, but the geographical and climate-related information does not fit this. A possible explanation: Durmstrang was originally founded somewhere in in present-day Poland or the South-Western portion of the Baltic states, by German wizards in a dedicated effort to bring what they considered the best magical education to those portions of Eastern Europe where magical education was primitive or non-existant (at least as far as they saw it). The language of instruction at the school was German, though the students were East-European. Then, however, comes the expansion of the Teutonic Order, a German order of knight-monks which Christianised large areas in present-day Poland and Baltic states through what I've understood were some rather bloody crusades - they created a Teutonic State in that area too. Under pressure from these crusades, Durmstrang - which yet hasn't been able to settle itself with good enough protective magic - is forced to move - sooner rather than later, to be able to move in an organised fashion rather than flee like headless chickens.The direction of movement, and the final destination is influenced through negotiations with other magical power-centra which are not willing to let Durmstrang settle too near them. [snip] > GulPlum AKA Richard, who's prepared to admit to being a bit > surprised by the level of repetition in posts on this subject... The wheel has indeed been invented many times on this list. From neilward at dircon.co.uk Tue Dec 17 17:11:22 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:11:22 -0000 Subject: ADMIN-redirect to OTC ...- Re: Actual lines from Book Five :-) In-Reply-To: <20021217060506.10643.h007.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48442 Pickle Jimmy said: << Ok, I haven't seen book five, but I thought it would be fun to look through what we *do* have and find lines that have a "better than even" chance of being in book five. >> Hi everyone, This is a really fun idea, and I hate to wave my rather gnarly wand at it, but can I ask for all further responses to go the OT Chatter list? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ We do sometimes redirect posts to OT Chatter when there's potential for a large number of responses, some possibly of only one or two lines. Although "the other place" is for off topic posts, you will find HP-related topics being discussed there as well, especially at the fun end of the scale. ... not that we don't have fun here, picking theories to pieces, you understand. ;-) Thanks for your cooperation! Neil _____________ Flying Ford Anglia Mechanimagus Moderator From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Dec 17 17:17:19 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:17:19 -0000 Subject: Krum at Durmstrang (Was Re:Durmstrang) In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021217160310.009672a0@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48443 GulPlum AKA Richard pondered: > So my doubts remain: why does Krum travel 2,000 miles to go to >school? Krum may be an exception to the rule. After all, he is a phenomenal athlete. I don't know whether schools do this in Europe, but I know in the US it is not that unusual for outstanding athletes to be recruited by schools quite some distance from their homes. I just recently read an article about middle school basketball players going to private schools in an entirely different state than their homes. >From what we've seen, Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang are the three largest and likely the three best schools in Europe. If Krum was given a chance to attend one of these schools, rather than a small, less well known, and possibly less successful school closer to his home, I'm sure he wouldn't think twice about accepting. -Corinth From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 17:59:07 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:59:07 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Krum at Durmstrang (Was Re:Durmstrang) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48444 GulPlum AKA Richard pondered: > So my doubts remain: why does Krum travel 2,000 miles to go to >school? Does he have to? The WW has portkeys, floo powder and apparation. He could pop home every day if he wanted. Not like he has to take the plane or train. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From julia at thequiltbug.com Tue Dec 17 16:58:36 2002 From: julia at thequiltbug.com (juliamc) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:58:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long) Message-ID: <20021217085836.14542.h007.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48445 On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: > > 1)Person to die in next book? > -I gotta go with the obvious choice, Colin Creevy > > > 12)General info > -Percy Weasley doesn't quit the Ministry of Magic But > does inform them (unhappily) with information to help > them > -Death Eaters within the Ministry of Magic try to > conver Percy to become a Death Eater I have a feeling that Percy's going to die, maybe not in the next book but the 6th. His family ties and his job aspirations are going to clash and he's going to have to make a decision. He seems so ambitious. Maybe he'll be unwittingly used by the DE's in the MoM(being blinded by ambition, not realizing what's going on), then realizes the truth too late to do anything about it. Julia devoted H/H shipper! From Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 18:40:05 2002 From: Talkative_alien_4000 at yahoo.com (Darla ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:40:05 -0000 Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros " wrote: > Aha...Finally. Okay so I'm not paranoid. > Is it trust? I wonder. > we are continously treated to scenes where Severus has tried to > warn Dumbledore or express his trepidation about certain situations > and it always ends the same way. With the warning look, the warning > tone. Or worse yet, a look of amusement! > > > My question is what has Dumbledore got on Snape. He cleared his name > as a Death Eater, we know that. Is there something else? //////ME: It's really interesting where you're going with this, but I can't believe Dumbledore would tie *anyone*, Snape of all people, to him out of force or blackmailing knowledge. What kind of support would that be against Voldemort? People who you couldn't really rely on... I believe the reason behind Dumbledore silencing Snape on several occasions is possibily the most basic on. Snape has a tendency to let his emotions, anger in particular, over-come him at times, (as shown at the end of PoA) and Dumbledore is merely preventing him from saying something he might later regret. Also, bear in mind, that these scenes we have seen have, obviously, occured whilst Harry and other students were present. As a teacher first and fore-most Dumbledore is not likely to allow such confidential converstaions (such as Black having 'inside help') to take place in front of students! For all we know Dumbledore might listen to Snape later in private. IMO Snape is a character who lives a constant struggle, both with himself and others. He has a lot to prove, and a lot to move on from and sort out, and I beleive it's Dumbledore's faith in him, his support, and his quiet respect that binds Snape to him. Sort of like the balm from Voldemort's treatment of him. Darla /////////// > From sammer at webspan.net Tue Dec 17 18:56:16 2002 From: sammer at webspan.net (Joanne Sammer) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:56:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48447 > >JoAnne wrote: >> I don't see any danger of Quidditch becoming an obsession. Remember >> that when Harry flew for the first time, it was a revelation to him. >> Finally, he was good at something. He felt free. Quidditch has been >> a way for Harry to be notable for something other than his scar. It >> also seems like a lot of fun. Melody replied: >I was not trying to say >"Quidditch" itself would become an obsession, but rather, that the >clarity of mind of a single-minded pursuit of an object could. His >taught style of "seeking" could become an obsession. The integrated >mind set of how to search for a snitch would creep in his >subconscious. The needs to clear the path to free the mind to search >could also follow. Those are dangerous gifts and traits to have in >wrong hands. While I do think Harry is being brought up to see morals >clearly, I do find these tactics are shown in the book to not be the >best way to achieve your goals. I see your point, but I do not think Harry is now or ever will become obsessed with anything because it would be too out of character and, more importantly, would drag down the story. Harry will only become obsessed if it furthers and fits with the story and his character. And frankly, given the way Harry has been portrayed to date, I think a single-minded obsession of any sort would be completely out of character for him. Aside from his Zen "one-with-the-snitch" approach that someone else mentioned, he hasn't shown the slightest inclination toward obsessive behavior. He would have to change a lot over the course of the remaining books for it to be plausible. Moreover, if you look at the characters JKR has presented that do have this type of single-minded obsession, they are either evil (Voldemort, Crouch Jr.) or slightly ridiculous (Oliver Wood, Percy). > > >JoAnne wrote: >> Harry knew he had a major problem with >> dementors (not just when playing Quidditch) and needed to do >> something to protect himself. > Melody replied: >Before, I pointed out that Harry knew he had this problem ever since >the train. He even knew the dementors were at the school and would be >a continual possible threat to him, but Harry did not seek help >against them until they threatened his Quidditch game. He then sought >after Lupin to try and find a way to clear up this problem because of >that motivation. That motivation is very key to me. Harry, when he >has a single-minded adventure like he does *during* the game, will try >everything he can do to avert *anything* that could possible take his >mind off of catching that snitch. That is what I find dangerous if it >is allowed to boil and pervert. Again, I just don't see this. It is a major leap to go from wanting to do well at Quidditch to developing any sort of obsession. If he had obsessive tendencies, they would have manifested themselves in other parts of this life. and I don't see that. Joanne From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 19:05:06 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:05:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Karkaroff's name (Was: Re: Durmstrang) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021217190506.6392.qmail@web40511.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48448 wrote: > Even the name > Karkaroff sounds like a Russian name to me. Like Finland (especially > Lapland), north-eastern Russia has some old folk tradition of > witchcraft, shamans and such. > raunistar Me: I also believe that Durmstrang is in north-western Russia or in Finland, in Karelia maybe. The fact that Karkaroff doesn't have an accent means nothing. There *are* Russian people who speak English without an accent. He could be Russian and educated in the UK. His phrase about "dear old Hogwarts" supports that. But what interests me more is Karkaroff's last name. It has a Russian masculine ending (-off), but in my opinion is rather artificial. But it does have a very interesting meaning. Kar (or karr) is (in Russian) the sound that the crow makes. In Russian mythology the crow, or rather the raven, is the symbol of bad news, a messenger of death. That is pretty symbolic, isn't it? JKR did her research well. Also, another question that was raised: why does Krum go to Durmstrang when it's so far from Bulgaria? It could be that it's a family tradition. If his father went to Durmstrang, Krum'd probably go there too. Besides, if Durmstrang *is* in Russia, which is highly probable, Krum, being Bulgarian, might want to go to another Slavic country to get his education Any thoughts? Masha (who was Maria but is changing her name since there appears to be another Maria on the list) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 19:50:51 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:50:51 -0000 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long) In-Reply-To: <003401c2a5b9$0a5b8ce0$59edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48449 As a preliminary comment, bboy_mn would like to say BRILLIANT! bboy_mn respond in part: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: > BoBaFeTT: Where to start > > 1)Person to die in next book? > -I gotta go with the obvious choice, Colin Creevy. BBOY_MN: Collin or Dennis, the one who doesn't die blames Harry for the death of the other. > > 2)hook up's > -again the obvious > -Hermione & Ron > -Harry & Genny (perhaps book 6 or 7) > ...edited... -end this part- bboy_mn: JKR has hinted that everyone will fall for the wrong person. I think part of the conflict in the next book will be Hermione is mildly infatuated with Harry, nothing significant, but hangs around with him and talks about him enough to make Ron jealous. Harry on the other hand will be obscessed with Cho (still) but feeling too guilty and distracted to notice what is going on between Hermione and Ron. Ron on the other hand will have someone infatuated with him that he is not noticing. Harry will be much friendlier with and closer to Ginny, but be too distracted by Cho to notice Ginny's real feelings. Collin on the other hand will have a major thing for Ginny which is how he will come more to the forefront of the story and this will he build sympathy for him when he finally dies (or it could be Dennis). So basically everyone is attracted to someone else and too distracted to realize who is actually attracted to them. -end bboy_mn this part- > BoBaFeTT continues: > > 3)Neville's Future > -His parent's will regain their sanity > -He discovers great talents within and shows why he's in Gryffindore > ...edited... -end this part- bboy_mn adds: We can expect great things from Neville, unfortunately I fear that he is a prime candidate for a hero's death. I love Neville, and will never accept anyone claiming Neville is evil. NINE!!!! -end this part- ... big edit... > > 6)Harry's Future > -Goes back to the Dursley's to find them being exceedingly kind to him (Not due to what he did to his aunt but because he can save them from poverty) BBOY_MN: How does he save them from poverty? Just curious. > -Meets his Neighbor Miss Figgs who gives him summerschool in Protection from the Dark Arts BBOY_MN: Excellent way to fit her into the story, and leaves room for someone else to be the Dark Arts teacher. I like it. > -Force's the dursley's to tell him all about his mother and father BBOY_MN: It's about time. ...edited... > > 8)Snape ...edited.. > -helps Harry learn more to protect him (Doing it rather "Snape" like though) BBOY_MN: I've always felt that if they got one more incompitent Dark Arts teacher, Harry would go to Snape out of frustration and say, I hate you but I'm tired of fighting the Death Curse with the Jelly Legs Curse. You're the only qualifies person here.. SO TEACH ME! - end this part- ...edited... > > 11)Dumbledore > -We find out he IS Nickolas Flamelle and created his Albus name cause he somehow knew he would be needed at hogwarts ...edite... BBOY_MN: Now there is an interesting thought. (Dumbledore continued) >-We find out Harry's Parents were the Keepers of the Sorc. > Stone/Phil. Stone That was given to them by Dumbledore and thats > how they made their money that they left to Harry (more into my > idea of dumbledore being Harry's relative) > ... ... ... BBOY_MN: Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. That explains why Voldemort was after them. I love this idea! > BoBaFeTT continues: > > 12)General info > -We find out James Potter is realated to Dumbledore and Lilly Potter is related to Voldemort. BBOY_MN: A lot of people support this theory, and I like it, but I think it's a huge stretch to connect Lilly to Voldemort. Of course, Lilly has red hair, and the Weasley's have red hair, maybe there is a connection there that leads us to discover that the Weasley are somehow related to Voldemort. Since Arthur is related to Voldie yet fought against him, he made a lot of powerful enemies and that's part of what is holding him back at the Ministry. Of course, that's an even bigger stretch. I do believe there is something up with Lilly, something very significant. I just don't know for sure what it could be though. -end this part- ... ... ... > -Fred and George do open their joke shop and it does Smashingly > -Fred and George do buy ron his New dress robes as harry request's but they first give him a robe with all sorts of joke enchantments messing with him first. BBOY_MN: I like this too. I think this is one prediction that has a high probability of happening. > -Death Eaters within the Ministry of Magic try to conver Percy to become a Death Eater. BBOY_MN: Something big is up with Percy too, not sure what, but something really big. I like you idea, and while I know people are going to die, I really hope it's not Percy. I want Percy to see that his ambition, perfection, and absolute adherence to the rules are hurting him. Hurting him both professionally, personally, and emotionally. Percy needs to take a lesson from Hermione and lighten up. -end this part- > -Doby aids the cause by setting up a house elf underground infomation line between house elves who believe in the greater good. BBOY_MN: I've had thought along this line too. I like it, but it's difficult to understand HOW this could happen, but I do see it happening. > - ... ... ... Harry returns to become the headmaster of Hogwarts ;) BBOY_MN: Winky face ;) or no winky face ;), I could really see this happening. It's hard to believe the someone so young could be headmaster or be disiplined enough for the job, but I could see this happening. I don't really like the idea though. -end this part- > -Harry looks into the mirror and see's him exactly as he is. BBOY_MN: Cool way to end the series. Harry is completely satisfied with everything about himself and his life, even his.... 'scar'. > > well thats all i can think of .... > > i hope you enjoy the thought' as i do > > BoBaFeTT bboy_mn: indeed, I did enjoy it. Excellent prediction of the future. bboy_mn From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Dec 17 20:11:11 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:11:11 -0000 Subject: JKR's nod to oral tradition Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48450 The recent quest to predict lines and phrases which may reoccur in OoP has led me to post on a topic that has long been bubbling away in my mind. IIRC, JKR has in the past been criticised for her unimaginative and repetitive phrases. I have always disliked the criticism, although noted the fact that repetitive imagery has indeed occurred. Rather than blast her lack of creativity, I have thought that this repetition is a nod to certain classical epics which, if they were not originally told, were certainly pieced together in the oral tradition. I am thinking of Homer's "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey", although the suggestion might be equally true of other oral-derived epics which I am unfamiliar with. Homer repeated many sentences again and again, and used certain epithets to distinguish his characters. An example of an epithet would be "swift-footed" Achilles or a phrase, "urged them on in a great voice". Homer uses these again and again to emphasis the personality or distinguishing traits of certain characters. To me, JKR's repeated imagery of Snape's bat like quality is not dissimilar, nor is some of her repeated use of phrases. Dumbledore often speaks gently eg "If I thought I could help you" said Dumbledore gently p. 603 GoF UK hardback edition or "You can't blame them" said Dumbledore gently p.13 PS paperback edition. JKR studied "classics" as part of her degree, and is clearly well versed in mythology, so I would be surprised if she was unfamiliar with Homer, or more particularly the power of enforced imagery. I believe that her use of repetition is deliberate and enhances the imagery that she has so vividly created in our heads. Ali From rachelwp at attbi.com Tue Dec 17 19:47:20 2002 From: rachelwp at attbi.com (rachelwp at attbi.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:47:20 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Seeking: Is it meant to be a good thing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48451 Melody Wrote: >Before, I pointed out that Harry knew he had this problem ever since >the train. He even knew the dementors were at the school and would be >a continual possible threat to him, but Harry did not seek help >against them until they threatened his Quidditch game. He then sought >after Lupin to try and find a way to clear up this problem because of >that motivation. That motivation is very key to me. Harry, when he >has a single-minded adventure like he does *during* the game, will try >everything he can do to avert *anything* that could possible take his >mind off of catching that snitch. That is what I find dangerous if it >is allowed to boil and pervert. Now Me: I think that the reason Harry sought to protect himself from the dementors was not so much about a single-minded obsession. Wood wasn't going to let him play if he didn't find a way to take care of his 'problem'. I know kids on a sports team hate being benched- this could have been the motivation here. Rachel From sunday_silence99 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 20:22:00 2002 From: sunday_silence99 at yahoo.com (A Painter) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:22:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore's addition to the P/S or S/S Message-ID: <20021217202200.61318.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48452 Hello, Forgive me if this has been covered, but it bothers me. In Book 1 HP & the S/S the description on the back of Dumbledore's trading cards says something along the lines of "...his work with Flamel on the scorcer's stone". So we know that Dumbledore did something pretty major with the stone in order for it to be mentioned on the card. But what? Voldemort wants the stone to become whole/immortal. But we don't hear a whole lot about anything else the stone can be used for. From the Lexicon, I gathered that Dumbledore is about 175 years old and in book I Flamel is 600 years old (I've heard 700, too, but thats not the issue) So Flamel was using the stone to become immortal long before Dumbledore was even born. So what else did Dumbledore and Flamel do to or with the stone to warrant putting on the card. IMHO, the cardmaker, like baseball cards and such, would want to put one of Dumbledore's bigger accomplishments on the back. So what was this great work that was done? Has the stone been totally distroyed and we'll never hear of it again. Or is it lurking somewhere and will come to light in later books and show us what exactly Dumbledore did with the stone? Also, I'm really impressed with this list and that the people posting are actually grown-ups. More grown-up then some other so called mature lists. Thank you everyone for this excellent resource. Goodnight, Silence (who is quite possibly beating a dead horse) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 17 20:22:43 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:22:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups]DD a mischief maker (was: DD KNEW about the Map) Message-ID: <16b.18b6f1e7.2b30e193@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48453 In a message dated 17/12/2002 08:02:54 Eastern Standard Time, sixhoursahead at yahoo.com writes: > Would DD confiscate the map? I do not think so. He probably believes that > Harry has a right to it. Obviously the map was just MADE for > sneaking-about, and rule-breaking, but then, who gave Harry the > Invisibility Cloak? > I think this is an excellent point. We all know that Dumbledore has his own ideas about the ways things should be in the WW.Giving Harry the Invisibility Cloak was A) Passing down a belonging from Father to Son- This was the first thing Harry really had to connect him with his family other than the tales he heard from others. The cloak would have been better suited as a gift for Harry when he was of age and perhaps more responsible than an eleven year old, but Dumbledore sees it fit for him to have it... knowing that it will lead to the same mischief and running amok that James, Sirius, Remus, and (grumble) Peter had shared in their school days. It seems that Dumbledore strongly supports this kind of behaviour. We can tell from the twinkle in his eyes and his encouragement for rule breaking- think of the time turner ( although uised to save two lives it was still breaking magical laws) or the times where he runs into Harry while Harry is under the cloak- that Dumbledore was probably quite the mischief maker in his day. There are multiple comments - both negative and positive- in the books about how DD runs the school. He is often kept in check by Minerva McGonagall when he begins to speak or act in a way presumably un-headmasterly. ( Aye, I made that word up) B) The Marauder's Map is FUNNY. Dumbledore seems to have a penchant for humourous things. So, I would think he would find the map terribly amusing. Just as Remus, so warm and tender to Harry, returns the map to him at the end of PoA. The writers of the map would "want to lure" Harry and his friends to mischeif- they would find it funny. Would Dumbledore? Absolutely!! I think. The map doesn't exist to hurt anyone; it exists in good fun and mischief. Again, the tradition is there. This belonged to Harry's father. Harry has VERY little of his parents other than the looks of his father and his mother's eyes, the cloak, and the photo album he recieved from Hagrid. I think DD would think it was a travesty for Harry not to have the map. He trusts that Harry will not use the map for anything bad or dangerous but rather, use it as it was intended. ( Even though Harry has a way of getting himself into dangerous spots.) And, I am sure DD woudl find great amusement in the antics of HHR while using the map. C) DD says in PoA that he knew Harry's father very well both at Hogwarts and after. There is a good chance that in their friendship after Hogwarts that James "came clean" on a few things. I doubt he explained the Anamagi, but the map would be one of those things that he might have talked about. The reason I say this is that, ( and I could be the only one) DD is a father figure to the students, and at least I, when becoming an adult and moving away told my mum quite a bit of the rule breaking and horribly funny/slightly dangerous things I did as a child. It would have been a delight for both DD and James to share these stories. I can picture DD in my mind laughing and saying things like, "So THAT is what you four were up to!"-- somewhat like Ron's amasment at Fred and George's joke stuff they created in their room. The more I reread the books the more I see that Dumbledore is a little "off". His eccentricities are showing the more we get to know him. Yes, he is an incredible wizard and headmaster. His ideas are undoubtedly progressive. He has a half giant teaching ( I love Hagrid, but in the books Ron explains that most of the WW are frightened of Giants), he brings in Remus to teach ( oh how I wish he had been able to stay)- despite being a werewolf, and then there is Moody. The real Moody is a nut. But, in each of these people, DD sees true talent, compassion, love, and trust. Not things your average wizard or Wizard School headmaster would see or be willing to risk. DD starts a few times in the books to tell what could be perceived as off colour jokes- he has a great sense of humour. He is thoughtful and Harry notices the way he smiles when he thinks; this makes me want to believe that DD is ofttimes finding amusement in everyday things. If we knew more about DD's younger life, I think we would find that he was much like Harry and James. I expect, DD had a small circle of close friends with whom he, too, ran amok and had a grand time of breaking rules and stirring up trouble which is perhaps why he is so lenient with HHR, much to the dismay of Snape. DD probably had Sanpe and Malfoy figures in his life as a young wizard--- we know that people like Lucius hate the way he runs the school -- so he may sympathise with Harry while also finding amusement in just how steamed Snape and Malfoy get with Harry. Remus states that DD encouraged he rumours about the Shrieking Shack in the village of Hogsmeade. DD is probably proud of how big the rumours of ghosts became. Remus says that the shack has been perfectly quiet for years, but still people fear it. I can see DD having many a secret laugh when in the village still hearing people make comments on how the shack is haunted. He seems to enjoy little things such as this, i.e. knowing the truth but hearing the fantastic. For instance at the end of book one saying that what had happened to HHR with Quirrel/Voldie was a secret, thus the whole school knew. (Although he doesn't seem to squelch rumours that undoubtedly began) Anyway, these are just my thoughts- nonlinear as always..... I just really think DD was quite a mischievious one in his day. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bobafett at harbornet.com Tue Dec 17 19:25:03 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:25:03 -0800 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (touch of FF) References: <20021217085836.14542.h007.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: <002a01c2a602$00bfa420$46edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48454 On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: > > 1)Person to die in next book? > -I gotta go with the obvious choice, Colin Creevy > > > 12)General info > -Percy Weasley doesn't quit the Ministry of Magic But > does inform them (unhappily) with information to help > them > -Death Eaters within the Ministry of Magic try to > conver Percy to become a Death Eater Julia wrote I have a feeling that Percy's going to die, maybe not in the next book but the 6th. His family ties and his job aspirations are going to clash and he's going to have to make a decision. He seems so ambitious. Maybe he'll be unwittingly used by the DE's in the MoM(being blinded by ambition, not realizing what's going on), then realizes the truth too late to do anything about it. Me again: I have to agree with you there on most points. I hope he doesn't die, but it's a plausible idea. But I can definitely see him being manipulated to help them by being offered advancment in the Ministry. It would be somewhat like: Death Eater: "Ay Percy, I need you to do this and that for me." Percy: "I don't know; that doesn't sound right to me." Death Eater: "By the way, did I tell you you're now in the running for the Head of operations in this branch? Do well here and you're a shoe-in." --BoBaFeTT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rachelwp at attbi.com Tue Dec 17 19:57:13 2002 From: rachelwp at attbi.com (rachelwp at attbi.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:57:13 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48455 bboy_mn Wrote: JKR has hinted that everyone will fall for the wrong person. I think part of the conflict in the next book will be Hermione is mildly infatuated with Harry, nothing significant, but hangs around with him and talks about him enough to make Ron jealous. Now Me: I hope this hasn't been gone over before, as I'm a newcomer. However, isn't it a possibility that Krum will be at Hogwarts next year and Hermione may be infatuated with him? Does anyone know exactly what year Krum was in at Durmstrang? Rachel From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Tue Dec 17 21:37:22 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:37:22 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's addition to the P/S or S/S In-Reply-To: <20021217202200.61318.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20021217210636.0098a340@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 48456 At 12:22 17/12/02 -0800, A Painter wrote: >Hello, > >Forgive me if this has been covered, but it bothers me. In Book 1 HP & the >S/S the description on the back of Dumbledore's trading cards >says something along the lines of "...his work with Flamel on the >scorcer's stone". So we know that Dumbledore did something pretty >major with the stone in order for it to be mentioned on the card. But what? Not quite. The card talks of Dumbledore's "work on *alchemy* [my emphasis] with his partner, Nicolas Flamel". Whilst the search for the Philosopher's Stone is a significant element of alchemy, it's hardly all there is to the subject. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Dumbledore had any input into the creation of the Stone itself. >Voldemort wants the stone to become whole/immortal. But we don't hear a >whole lot about anything else the stone can be used for. Canon explains that "The stone will transform any metal into pure gold. It also produces the Elixir of Life, which will make the drinker immortal." General tradition adds also an ability to heal the ill or infirm. In other words, there's not a lot more to the Stone than the first book makes clear, nor does it have any other uses. > From the Lexicon, I gathered that Dumbledore is about 175 years old and > in book I Flamel is 600 years old (I've heard 700, too, but thats not the > issue) Whilst there is no actual information about Dumbledore's age in the books, the book Hermione consults in PS/SS says that Flamel "celebrated his 665th birthday last year"; admittedly we know nothing about the book's age, so the only thing we can say is that Flamel is *at least* 665 at that stage (incidentally, and this is news to some people, Flamel was a real historical character - as was his wife Pernelle; whilst his precise birth date is unknown, he was born around 1330-1135, so he'd have been 665 a few years ago - Hermione's book was therefore either quite new or magically updated itself). >So Flamel was using the stone to become immortal long before Dumbledore >was even born. So what else did Dumbledore and Flamel do to or with the >stone to warrant putting on the card. IMHO, the cardmaker, like baseball >cards and such, would want to put one of Dumbledore's bigger >accomplishments on the back. So what was this great work that was done? As stated above, Dumbledore's work with Flamel was on *alchemy*, not necessarily the Stone itself. Furthermore, assuming Dumbledore's achievements are listed in order of priority (as you suspect), his work with Flamel is only the third listed, after defeating Grindelwald, and discovering the 12 uses of dragon blood. (Of course, both of these achievements have thus far not had any relevance to the books' plots, but there is major speculation that they will have in one of the books to come.) >Has the stone been totally distroyed and we'll never hear of it again. Or >is it lurking somewhere and will come to light in later books and show us >what exactly Dumbledore did with the stone? The Stone was Flamel's, not Dumbledore's to destroy. Whilst he assures Harry that it "has been destroyed", there is of course space for speculation that it actually wasn't. My own feelings are that it was. >Silence (who is quite possibly beating a dead horse) There are no dead horses around here. Only lots of ghost horses which frequently come up for some extra flogging. :-) -- GulPlum AKA Richard, who thinks that use of the term "Sorcerer's Stone" other than as the American title of the first HP book should be banned from this list. :-) From jmmears at comcast.net Tue Dec 17 21:46:57 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:46:57 -0000 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, rachelwp at a... wrote: > I hope this hasn't been gone over before, as I'm a newcomer. However, isn't it > a possibility that Krum will be at Hogwarts next year and Hermione may be > infatuated with him? Does anyone know exactly what year Krum was in at > Durmstrang? Hi Rachel, The canon doesn't explicitly say what year Krum is in at Durmstrang. However, in GoF his description is as follows: "Viktor Krum was thin, dark, and sallow-skinned, with a large curved nose and thick black eyebrows. He looked like an overgrown bird of prey. It was hard to believe he was only eighteen." p103 GoF, US hardcover. In light of this fact, it seems unlikely that Krum will be at Hogwarts next year as a student. Of course, he could be there under some other pretext. It will be interesting to find out whether or not Hermione has gone to visit him over the summer ;-). Jo Serenadust From ursula.mueller at same.net Tue Dec 17 22:03:19 2002 From: ursula.mueller at same.net (Ursula Mueller.=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_FV-Mp.gr=F6na?=) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:03:19 +0100 Subject: MoM - parody of the United Nations? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48458 After having read the essay on the MoM, I missed one plausible explanation: I always saw the MoM as a parody of the United Nations, not a national Government. The MoM is ridiculously bureaucratic (even more than a national Government) and it is working on an international level - the story about Percy's first report speaks for itself (an international standardisation of cauldron thickness). :-) This is exactly how the United Nations work (or not work ...). There are many allegories between the MoM and the UN in the books, but unfortunately, I haven't got the time to put them all together now. :-) Furthermore, the MoM is deeply power-corrupt, like any muggle political organisation. But of course, the higher you get in the hierarchy, the more power-corruptness you'll see (I have to know, because I worked as a senior political advisor in the Swedish Parliament for 7 years). Fudge is a *very* good example for this corruptness. Therefore, I agree with former statements that Cornelius Fudge is not directly "evil", but he supports the evil side by his power-corrupt behaviour. Of course, if you call power itself the source of evil (as I do), all people dealing with power are evil, but this would be another threat. :-) ***Ursula, Sweden (wounded auror, on rehabilitation) From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 22:25:09 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:25:09 -0000 Subject: MoM - parody of the United Nations? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48459 Ursula:"After having read the essay on the MoM, I missed one plausible explanation: I always saw the MoM as a parody of the United Nations, not a national Government." I'd think the European Union would be a more likely target for JKR's skewer. From our side of the Atlantic, it seems that every aspect of life is being decided by a vast bureaucracy in Brussels. Have they taken over the whole city? The size of the MoM is important to understanding the wizard world. Are there two or three, five or ten, or hundreds and hundreds in each of these bureaus, offices, and squads? The answer to that is an important clue to the size of the wizard world in Great Britain at least. You called yourself a wounded auror. What's St. Mungo's like? :) From the.harrisfamily at virgin.net Tue Dec 17 22:26:24 2002 From: the.harrisfamily at virgin.net (eillim022861 ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:26:24 -0000 Subject: Snape as Byronic hero Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48460 In my first posting (this is my second), I mentioned that I considered Snape as an example of a Byronic hero. This was queried by GulPlum but was brilliantly supported by Porphyria. I studied victorian literature whilst at college and in my opinion am not sure whether Byron would be classified with the romantics. There was a substantial interest in gothic literature in England in the mid- nineteeth century and the Bryonic hero seems to slot very nicely into that particular mould. (brooding, dark secrets, some kind of deformity). The classic 'Byronic hero' is Mr Rochester from Jane Eyre who has a dark secret, shows evidence of mental cruelty and is not classically attractive. (Comparisons?) Back to Snape. I agree that not all the epithets fit, but for me the gothic imagery that surrounds him, his personality, image and surrounding mystery definately lends itself to the description of Byronic hero. Finally with regard to Snape's 'attractiveness', I agree with Porphyria that if JKR had intended to make him unattractive she failed, (well with me anyway). A fact I believe also emphaised by casting Alan Rickman. eillim From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 22:30:37 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:30:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Flamel (WAS: Dumbledore's addition to the P/S or S/S) In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021217210636.0098a340@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48461 GulPlum wrote: > The card talks of Dumbledore's "work on *alchemy* [my emphasis] > with his partner, Nicolas Flamel". Now me: The card does make me wonder about two things: (1) what alchemy work Dumbledore and Flamel might have done together and (2) what other projects Dumbledore and Flamel may have worked together on (since they are cited as "partners"). Since JKR rarely throws out such interesting tidbits without following-up on them later, I wonder if the answers will emerge in later books. GulPlum again: > The Stone was Flamel's, not Dumbledore's to destroy. Whilst he > assures Harry that it "has been destroyed", there is of course > space for speculation that it actually wasn't. My own feelings are > that it was. Me again: It is interesting that rumors that Flamel and his wife were still alive, sustained by the Elixir of Life, surfaced in the 1700s. So perhaps Flamel's immortality is a question that we will always be left to ponder. ~Phyllis From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 17 23:11:17 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:11:17 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Byronic Hero? References: <4.2.0.58.20021217024948.00970440@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: <017501c2a621$9ba971e0$118401d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48462 > > So in just what way can *anyone* see Snape as an archetypal Byronic hero, > rather than as the absolute antithesis of such? > I don't know about antithesis, but I don't particularly see him as a Byronic hero. Heathcliff and his ilk just does nothing to me but bore me to tears. This big archetypal romantic hero has to be rich and idle - as much money free time as necessary to wander aimlessly all over Europe in search of his purpose in life, no? At least in Russian romantic literature it was an absolute requirement. Now Snape has a profession, and he is dedicated and very good at it, which for me is one of his biggest selling points and also something that disqualifies him from being Byronic hero. I also don't see how he is similar to Javert. Shudder. Irene From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 23:19:45 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:19:45 -0000 Subject: Fred and George Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48463 I was reading Boba Fett's predictions and his on the twins makes sense; he said the joke shop would be a smash. I like Fred and George, and I think they are very talented, magical-wise, they just haven't had an opportunity to show it yet. I think the joke shop will be a cover-up for what they will really be doing - spying on Death Eaters, or something of the sort. I'd like to see one of them end up with Hermione....she needs some fun and excitement ;). Just some random ramblings. Alora From sgarfio at yahoo.com Tue Dec 17 23:32:20 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:32:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil!McGonagall revisited (briefly) In-Reply-To: <105.224f9581.2b2fbc5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021217233220.11467.qmail@web21401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48464 Wendy wrote: > In an amazing > Trelawnyesque cosmic conjunction of events , I happened across a tiny > little Evil!McGonagall canon tonight, while reading Goblet of Fire. And then she referred us to the following posts: > #39470 by Elkins; #38783 by Porphyria; and #39495 by Cindy). which were before my time, so my curiosity led me to go read them. Okay, you've convinced me. McGonagall is eeeevil. Well, I'm not sure I totally believe it yet, but it certainly seems possible, and it would be a very JKR-esque turn of events, especially if it comes late in the series and therefore is a BIG bang. I have one thing to add, which may contribute to this theory, or may just be a tangent. In post #39495, it is mentioned that the hostages for the Second Task are put into their bewitched sleep in *McGonagall's* office, which got me thinking (and hopefully this hasn't been done to death). I've always found it interesting that *three* of the four hostages have strong connections to Harry: his two best friends and his crush. He is baffled by this for a few minutes; he's not been told what will be taken from him, and then when he is confronted with these four people (I suspect he didn't realize it would be a person), he hesitates as to which of them is for him. Of course, it doesn't take him *too* long to figure out that Cho is there for Cedric and Hermione is there for Krum, but there is doubt on Harry's part: he doesn't want to lose *any* of the three. As it turns out, the extra hostage he ends up having to "save" is the only one he doesn't personally care about. Now, do we know *who* decided who the hostages would be? They were put to sleep in McGonagall's office, and she was also the one who called Ron and Hermione out of class (maybe Cho too, we don't know). Did she have a hand in selecting the hostages? Did she purposefully select hostages for Cedric and Viktor who would also mean something to Harry? Fleur's sister isn't mentioned prior to this, so presumably she was back home, indicating that hostage candidates weren't limited to people who were close at hand. Why was Hermione chosen for Krum, if not to confuse Harry? Krum had just met her a few months ago. Is his life so empty that a 14-year-old girl (okay, maybe 15) he just met is the one thing he couldn't stand to lose? Similarly, it appears that Cedric had just hooked up with Cho at the Yule Ball. They at least attend the same school, so it's entirely possible that their romance had started much earlier, and Harry was just too infatuated with Cho to notice until it came time to actually ask her out. But if it *did* start with the Yule Ball, again, why Cho? Again, these questions may have nothing to do with McGonagall and her potential evilness; this thread just got me thinking about this again. I still question why three of the four hostages were people Harry wouldn't want to lose, whether it supports Evil!McGonagall or not. Any theories/past posts to point me to? - Sherry Who lives in the US and is now reading the UK version of PS to her children, and really can't understand *why* Scholastic thinks so little of our school children that they couldn't just leave the text intact and provide a glossary to inform us that a jumper is a sweater and that sherbet lemons are lemon drops (and also agrees with GulPlum's take on "Sorcerer's Stone" and proposes that we should just call it the Stone) ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 00:22:31 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:22:31 -0000 Subject: Krum and Her-My-Oh-Ninny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48465 I've been thinking about Krum's relationship with Hermione (I hope I got his version right on the subject field) and I've got an unusual conclusion to the question, what does he see in her? Krum is famous, perhaps more deservingly than Harry. Harry had a stroke of luck to get his fame (yes, I know what it cost him), while Krum trained hard and played harder to get where he is as a player. Bu this has its own cost, he's so famous that girls will fall over themselves to get him as their partner and therefore will fake their responses to him. (No, I'm not a girl hater (but why do they hate me, LOL), but the prestige of going with someone famous to the Yule ball has to count for a lot). Hermione, on the other hand, is too sensible to do that, she understands what famous people can be like (she's been one of Harry's best friends), she knows how annoying it can be to have your photo constantly taken and your signature demanded, and she takes it all in stride. I can't imagine Hermione acting like some silly schoolgirl and falling all over him. Krum would care for her just for that, let alone for any other benefits, and she would be very precious to him. Even if they become just friends, they'll still be close. She's someone he can be himself with. That's the definition of a true lover and/or friend. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 00:29:59 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:29:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's addition to the P/S or S/S In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021217210636.0098a340@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum wrote: > At 12:22 17/12/02 -0800, A Painter wrote: > >Hello, > > > > ...edited... So we know that Dumbledore did something pretty > >major with the stone in order for it to be mentioned on the > >card. But what? -end Painter- GulPlum commented: > > Not quite. The card talks of Dumbledore's "work on *alchemy* [my > emphasis] with his partner, Nicolas Flamel". Whilst the search > for the Philosopher's Stone is a significant element of alchemy, > it's hardly all there is to the subject. > > ... and a whole lot more good stuff from GulPlum... > > -- > GulPlum AKA Richard bboy_mn adds: GulPlum is correct, the pinicle of alchemy is the creation of the Philosopher's Stone, but it is much more complex than that. Plus, true alchemists do not hand out the knowledge of the Stone easily. You may have to study for many decade perhaps even a lifetime before the Master Alchemist would decide that you were worth of this knowledge. As other's have pointed out in previous discussions, the study of Alchemy and the quest for the Philosopher's Stone is as much a spiritual quest and an internal moral quest as it is the mechanics of Alchemy. A Master Alchemist would never give the secret to someone unless he/she thought the student truly understood it's meaning and consequences. In a sense, to be worthy of the Stone, you have to reach a level of spirituality and self-discovery where you realize that the true value of life is not in wealth or immortality, but in life itself. To have time means nothing, to use time means everything. "Better one day as a tiger than a lifetime as a lamb." I am reminded of a Zen Master who was asked by one of his student, how his life had changed after he became enlightened. The Zen Master said, 'Before I was enlightened, I chopped wood, carried water, and cooked my food. Now that I am enlightened, I chop wood, carry water, and cook my food.' I've got more little Zen-like stories, but let's move on. So, the fact that Dumbledore work for many years with Flamel on Alchemy, by no means means that Dumbledore has the secret of the stone. Was the stone destroyed? Dumbledore told Harry (not a quote) that the Stone had been destroyed and that Flamel and his wife had enough elixer to 'get their affairs in order'. Exactly how long does it take to get your affairs in order when you are approx. 700 years old. Ten years to a 700 year old man is like one year to a 70 year old man. 'Get their affairs in order' could be as short as a day, but it could very likely be as long as 50 years. So, I say the stone is destroyed but we have NOT seen the last of Nicholas Flamel. That my story and I"m stuck with it. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 00:47:27 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:47:27 -0000 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "serenadust " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, rachelwp at a... wrote: > Rachel originally said: > ... ... ... However, isn't it a possibility that Krum will be at > Hogwarts next year and Hermione may be infatuated with him? Does > anyone know exactly what year Krum was in at Durmstrang? > > Hi Rachel, > > The canon doesn't explicitly say what year Krum is in at > Durmstrang. ... ... ... > > In light of this fact, it seems unlikely that Krum will be at > Hogwarts next year as a student. ... ... ... > > Jo Serenadust bboy_mn: It was hinted in the book that Viktor would like to attend Hogwarts. Perhaps he will feel his education at durmstrang was inadequate, and will get Dumbledore's permission to repeat his 7th year. An alternative scenario is that since the Durmstrang's headmaster was gone, then graduation couldn't take place, so, in order to officially graduate, Viktor will have to finish his 7th and graduate under Dumbledore's authority. just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From Malady579 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 00:53:56 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:53:56 -0000 Subject: Harry the Seeker Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48469 Joanne wrote: >Aside from his Zen "one-with-the-snitch" approach that someone else >mentioned, he hasn't shown the slightest inclination toward obsessive >behavior. He would have to change a lot over the course of the >remaining books for it to be plausible. The mirror chapter in PS/SS was a start of obsession. He felt compelled to go back to it even when his best friend said he shouldn't. He sat for hours and just stared at it. That is obsession. Just at an early stage, so Harry *does* have it in him. Especially when it comes to things he yearns for. Maybe, Dumbledore stamped out his obsessive nature soon enough by showing the boy the ill logic of it, or maybe it is still there and can only be provoked by deep, deep feelings. But I will agree, Harry has not shown any signs of obsessive behavior since then. Lord knows, he is not obsessed with potions. ;) Rachel wrote: >I think that the reason Harry sought to protect himself from the >dementors was not so much about a single-minded obsession. Wood >wasn't going to let him play if he didn't find a way to take care of >his 'problem'. I know kids on a sports team hate being benched- this >could have been the motivation here. I would tend to agree with you Rachel except the text does not support that assertion. Yes, Wood *greatly* wants to win that cup, and yes, Harry is completely aware that Wood wants him to catch that snitch. I just find it a stretch that a 13 year-old boy would spend all his free time for the main purpose of making an older student happy. Frankly, it seems Harry wanted to protect his game and that was the *main* motivation. When Harry first came out of his short coma after falling from his broom and learned what happened, he asked- --- (PoA, Ch 9) "But the match," said Harry. "What happened? Are we doing a replay?" No one said anything. The horrible truth sank into Harry like a stone. "We didn't - *lose*?" Harry lay there, not saying a word. They had lost...for the first time ever, he had lost a Quidditch game. --- And when Harry was with Lupin at their first Patronus practice, Harry said- --- (PoA, Ch 12) "I've got to! What if the dementors turn up at our match against Ravenclaw? I can't afford to fall off again. If we lose this game we've lost the Quidditch Cup!" This meant that with Lupin's anti-dementor classes, which in themselves were more draining that six Quidditch practices, Harry had just one night a week to do all his homework. --- >From all that I would say Harry himself is quite motivated to win on his own and does not need the pressure or a threat from Wood to perfect his game. He is quite into winning on his own. And besides, if Wood threatened to "bench" Harry, the threat would be empty. Without Harry, Gryffindor would definitely loose. There is still no back-up seeker. Melody Who realized after she hit ?send?, that she left out a crucial sentence and had to delete her previous post. She greatly apologies to those that had to read this thing twice so think of it as a game of find-the-crucial-sentence. Ok, it?s a lame game, but I do apologies to those that got this twice. From ashfae at technicaldetails.org Wed Dec 18 01:05:02 2002 From: ashfae at technicaldetails.org (Ashfae) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:05:02 -0700 (MST) Subject: Unplottability & Hogwarts' Location (was: Where's Durmstrang?) In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021217160310.009672a0@plum.cream.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48470 > From: GulPlum > > The way I see "unplottablity", it's not about some kind of "alternative > geography" or parallel dimension. Buildings and other artifacts could be > fitted on Muggle maps, *if* they could be identified. The issue as I see it > is that unplottable areas are "shielded", rather than non-existent, to > Muggles. For instance, the main defence for the QWC pitch was that any > Muggle coming close would suddenly remember they need to be elsewhere. > > "Unplottablity" therefore comes not from the place not being identfiable in > terms of latitude and longitude, but from its contours being > unidentifiable, and thus there is no object to be plotted. I confess to being perplexed by the idea of unplottability, or at least how it applies specifically to Hogwarts. I agree that it causes an area to be shielded rather than nonexistant, but I've been under the impression that they affect wizards as well as Muggles. In Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them it's stated that the Isle of Drear, where Quintapeds dwell, is unplottable; it's implied that this is because they're dangerous for *everyone*, Muggle or wizard, and that people deliberately going there would be a very stupid idea. The thing is, Hogwarts is right next to Hogsmeade, which is famous for being the only entirely wizarding village in Britain. Is Hogsmeade also unplottable? Is it generally known that Hogwarts is located right next to Hogsmeade? The natives of Hogsmeade themselves *must* know, and I can't imagine that word doesn't spread. Is Hogsmeade completely isolated from the rest of the wizarding world? We haven't seen anything to indicate this, but if there are efforts to keep Hogwarts location a secret from rival schools, the existance of Hogsmeade would seem to render such security measures moot... But then, this is also coming from the girl who wants to know why, if owls can track down any wizard, the Ministry doesn't just send an owl with a letter to Sirius Black, and then trace the owl. *gryn* A good thing for Snuffles that they haven't, though. Ashfae From kethlenda at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 01:12:22 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:12:22 -0000 Subject: DD KNEW about the Map (was: Snape and the Map) In-Reply-To: <20021217113231.61386.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans < sixhoursahead at y...> wrote: So my only question is: > > Where is the map now? > > I think Dumbledore has it. But I really have no idea. > > > > ANGELA I think it's packed away somewhere in Moody's stuff; I think Fake- Moody left it in with all his other office stuff, and that now Real Moody has it, by accident. It's mixed in with all his other papers and effects; he probably doesn't know it's there. If he knows it's there, he probably suspects it of being some sort of Dark Magic, he being Moody and all. :) Strix From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Dec 18 01:25:14 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:25:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A motive for Sirius (finally!) Message-ID: <114.1c43e011.2b31287a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48472 In a message dated 12/16/02 5:48:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, wynnde1 at aol.com writes: > No matter how much snooping Snape was doing, > that would by no means justify murdering him - even if Lupin *was* suicidal > > because of it. And yes, I realise we are talking about the mentality of a > teenage boy. However, while I don't expect particularly deep or complex > views > of morality from ~15-year-olds, I do expect someone of that age to > understand > that murder is *wrong*. Particularly of the pre-meditated variety. If > Sirius > was planning send Snape in after Lupin, well aware that Snape's death was a > > distinct possiblity (and a good thing for Lupin, as well), well, that's > just > plain Evil (IMO). > I think we might be underestimating the 15 year olds here....I know quite a few and they are capable of very deep and complex views - but never mind that, on to Sirius! *If* Sirius had tried to kill Snape to save Lupin from suicide, it agrees with a philosopher....I cannot remember which one right now (little rusty ya know) and he said that virtuous intent was good enough, but Nietzche (sp) said that intent doesn't count. (Anyone else watch Nancy Drew *g*) So it all depends on who you believe. If you think intent does count, then what Sirius theoretically did could be seen as ok. But if you agree with Nietzche, it doesn't. It's not Evil (at least, not with a capital E). Maybe evil. The difference? Big Evil is Voldemort, Sauron, Hitler, etc. People who were doing things for their own gain. Little evil is when you are trying to do good things, but do them in a bad way. A "the ends justify the means" kinda thing. So his hypothetical motive was right...in his mind. ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ (Who *really* hopes that that made sense, but is thinking that it won't make sense to anyone but her...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 01:34:10 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:34:10 -0000 Subject: I'm Good To Fence Tonight (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48473 Continuing the recent sequence of filks from Broadway classics .. I'm Good To Fence Tonight (CoS, Chap. 11) To the tune of I Could Have Danced All Night, from Lerner and Loewe's My Fair Lady Hear a MIDI at http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/my_fair_lady.html Dedicated to Ashfae, an MFL fan THE SCENE: The Great Hall. Hogwarts students are excited over the prospect of a Dueling Club ? until they learn who will be teaching it ... CHORUS OF STUDENTS Board, board, upon the notice board, A Dueling Club is now coming around Train, train, who'll train us in this fight? It looks like it will be that Lockhart clown (Enter LOCKHART, followed by an ill-tempered SNAPE) LOCKHART I'm good to fence tonight Dark Arts Defense, that's right With wands instead of blades All of my published works Show I'm a Captain Kirk In robes deep plum in shade Now you will see why all find me exciting When with my aide I show my skill And when I cry Expelliarmus you will tell I'm good to fence, fence, fence all night SLYTHERINS Snape's full of wrath now HUFFLEPUFFS Just do the math now RAVENCLAWS & GRYFFINDORS Lockhart will soon be dead (LOCKHART repeats his previous verses. CHORUS sings the following in counterpoint) CHORUS (to LOCKHART) Retire now, or you'll be dead. Your doom's foregone, it's straight ahead. Lockhart, goodnight; let not bedbugs bite; Is it really true your folks were too inbred? Come run away, while you've a chance Or Snape will slay you with a glance Lockhart the late; Snape will cremate Sir, you'll lie in state. Put down your wand, we'll never tell; Now spread your robes and run like hell. SNAPE (to himself) This guy is dense, all right He's not a Mensa Knight Watch for my scarlet flash Although its impolite I cannot stand his sight Him into wall I'll smash Now he will see what started me knife-fighting Why I at once felt hate-filled spite It's `cause I know that blonde ain't fit to hold a wand Lockhart I'll damn, damn, damn all night! (End music. Wands raised, SNAPE & LOCKHART face one another in "the accepted combative position") LOCKHART (spoken) One ? two ? three .. SNAPE (spoken) Expelliarmus! (Snape's spell blasts Lockhart off his feet and hurls him backward against a wall) LOCKHART (struggling to his feet, looking not unlike Wile E. Coyote on a bad day) Well, there you have it! (LOCKHART again topples over backwards) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Dec 18 01:39:18 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001 ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:39:18 -0000 Subject: Snape as Byronic hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eillim022861 The classic 'Byronic hero' is Mr Rochester from Jane Eyre who has a > dark secret, shows evidence of mental cruelty and is not classically > attractive. (Comparisons?) > Back to Snape. I agree that not all the epithets fit, but for me the > gothic imagery that surrounds him, his personality, image and > surrounding mystery definately lends itself to the description of > Byronic hero. Okay, help me out here. When discussing literary figures, in this case heroes, subcatagory Byronic heroes, do the definitions of Byronic hero apply to a reader's perception of a character, or with how the other characters in the literary work view the subject? To continue with Snape as the potential Byronic Man, is he Byronic in how we relate to him or in how he interacts with and is percieved by the other Potterverse characters (I was a science major, okay?) I'm thinking of the attraciveness aspect. Setting aside film portrayals, it's obvious from discussions on the list that a lot of people find Snape attractive. I'm not one of them. But, it also seems clear that JKR is not trying to portray Snape as a physically attractive man. Nor, to my recollection, is there any instance in the books where any implication is made that any of the other characters see him as attractive. So, does the fact that there doesn't seem to be canon support for Snape's attractiveness negate at least that part of the Byronic hero concept? Or is canon outweighed by the positive reaction to Snape's attractiveness that lots of readers have? > Finally with regard to Snape's 'attractiveness', I agree with > Porphyria that if JKR had intended to make him unattractive she > failed, (well with me anyway). No, she didn't. ;-) Marianne, who freely admits she doesn't understand the Snape attraction factor that's out there, but who also thinks Snape is the most layered, interesting character in all of Potterverse. From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Dec 18 01:41:00 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:41:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nicknames Message-ID: <155.1907bca2.2b312c2c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48475 In a message dated 12/16/02 3:45:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com writes: > Hi > > I have spend the past week reading the HP books for the first time. > > I am now half way through P o A, and find myself hooked on the > adventures of Harry and his pals. > > I do have something niggling me a little though. > > Harry and his friends always refer to each other (so far at least) by > their full first name, even in moments of high excitement. > > Now, everyone knows that the first thing kids (and some adults) do > when they meet is assign each other nickames. > > Am I the only one who finds this odd? > > Louise. Actually, I didn't think it was very odd as most of the names don't lend themselves to nicknames. Take Severus for example, do you think a guy like our dear Potions Master would tolerate anyone calling him Sevvy? Not a chance in Hades. Sirius, Remus, James (well, actually, I *do* know a boy called Jamie...), etc. aren't really "nickname" names. Not like Ron or Bill (yes! an assumption! i'm only using it as an example - i know it might not be a nickname!). Nicknames are insanely popular in the U.S. (I know this, I have friends who go by Ashes and Mello (a play on the Marx bros.: Harpo, Grouch, etc. (and we added Karl)) and one girl calls me Steaksauce). Maybe HRH don't need them... ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snuffles__ at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 23:59:15 2002 From: snuffles__ at hotmail.com (Hank_n_Stein ) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:59:15 -0000 Subject: The death in book 5 and..... Hello... I'm Snuffy In-Reply-To: <20021217085836.14542.h007.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juliamc" wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: > > > > 1)Person to die in next book? > > -I gotta go with the obvious choice, Colin Creevy > > > > > > > 12)General info > > > -Percy Weasley doesn't quit the Ministry of Magic But > > does inform them (unhappily) with information to help > > them > > -Death Eaters within the Ministry of Magic try to > > conver Percy to become a Death Eater > > Julia: > I have a feeling that Percy's going to die, maybe not > in the next book but the 6th. His family ties and his > job aspirations are going to clash and he's going to > have to make a decision. He seems so ambitious. Maybe > he'll be unwittingly used by the DE's in the MoM(being > blinded by ambition, not realizing what's going on), > then realizes the truth too late to do anything about > it. > Personally my thoughts on the dead character would have to be Dumbledore. I think it only makes sense that the one person Voldemort fears the most should pass away as Harry is coming of age as it were... I mean, there is a good amount of story and development that could go along with this. It just makes sense, doesn't it? Oh and I heard there is another Snuffles around here somewhere... well.... I'm not sure what to say about that except uhm... well you can call me Snuff or Snuffy lol... I work with Pojo.com where we have a lot of Harry Potter TCG stuff. If yer interested at all in the card game and/or playing online feel free to drop me a line... ttfn, Snuffy From dangermousehq at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 01:35:45 2002 From: dangermousehq at hotmail.com (Danger Mouse) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:35:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A motive for Sirius (finally!) References: <114.1c43e011.2b31287a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48477 Oryomai: "It's not Evil (at least, not with a capital E). Maybe evil. The difference? Big Evil is Voldemort, Sauron, Hitler, etc. People who were doing things for their own gain. Little evil is when you are trying to do good things, but do them in a bad way. A "the ends justify the means" kinda thing. So his hypothetical motive was right...in his mind." === Me: In East of Eden, characters do evil things just for the sake of being evil. One lights her house aflame to kill her parents, fake her death, and become a prostitute, etc... with no definite motivation besides to be The Bad Guy. So what about those who do evil things just to be evil? -DM [ADMIN: Please make sure that responses to this thread return to the issue of Evil in the Potterverse. If you'd like to continue a general discussion of the nature of Evil, please convene in OT Chatter.] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Dec 18 02:47:57 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001 ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:47:57 -0000 Subject: Why Does Snape Trust Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros " wrote: > Is it trust? I wonder. Look at your examples, starting from > Dumbledore's treatmemt of Snape after the Prank (snigger--had to get > that in). What EVER was done or not about Sirius the painful fact is > that Severus was forbidden to discuss the matter further. He was > forced to swallow his pride (a rather large mouthful, that!) and > watch Sirius Black and co. run roughshod over the rules for the > remainder of their time at Hogwarts. I have to ask, what is the canon evidence of this? Yes, Severus apparently was forbidden to discuss the matter further, as I have no doubt he would have "outed" Remus in a hearbeat if he could have. If Dumbledore saw Lupin as an innocent victim of Sirius' plot, he surely would have wanted to protect Lupin. Did he appeal to Severus' sense of fair play? That wouldn't have worked, as Snape believed Lupin was in on the prank. So, what stopped him from saying anything? We don't know. And, why is there the assumption that Sirius and co. ran roughshod over the rules for the remainder of their time at Hogwarts? Because we can assume that Sirius wasn't expelled? I fail to see how the lack of expulsion translates into breaking every rule in existence with impunity for the remainder of MWPP's time at Hogwarts. > There was some sort of threat made to Severus at that time, I can't > imagine what it was but there had to be something. Maybe the threat was based on Severus' actions before or right after the prank. I know that a lot of people see Snape as the entirely innocent victim in this prank, strolling along meditating in the gardens, until Sirius all but threw him into the tunnel, rubbing his hands with Evil Overlordian glee at the thought of Severus' imminent demise. But, we don't have enough canon background about the circumstances to say that absolutely, positively, Snape was the pure- as-the-driven-snow victim, set upon by the evil Marauders who had made his entire school life a misery. So, perhaps there was something shady that Dumbledore used to keep Snape quiet in an attempt to protect Lupin. > Now fast forward to the "present day" relationship between Snape and > Dumbledore. For the most part it seems cordial. We are told that > Snape "turned spy at great personal risk" so we *assume* that > Dumbledore trusts Snape's judgement. > BUT we are continously treated to scenes where Severus has tried to > warn Dumbledore or express his trepidation about certain situations > and it always ends the same way. With the warning look, the warning > tone. Or worse yet, a look of amusement! > Like in your example: > > > **** > > "Remember the conversation we had, Headmaster, just before - > ah - the > > start of term?" said Snape, who was barely opening his lips, as > though trying > > to block Percy out of the conversation. > > "I do, Severus," said Dumbledore, and there was something > like warning > > in his voice. > > "It seems - almost impossible - that Black could have > entered the > > school without inside help. I did express my concerns when you > appointed -" > > "I do not believe a single person inside this castle would > have helped > > Black enter it," said Dumbledore, and his tone made it so clear the > subject > > was closed that Snape didn't reply. > > We've seen this over and over again. The most poignant example, of > course being the scene in POA where Severus "reminds" Dumbledore of > Black's murderous bent from their teenage days (as you cited so I > won't repeat) Knowing what he did--that Black was innocent-- > Dumbledore's response was nothing more than cruel "My memory is as > good as ever, Severus." After all, as far as EVERYONE ELSE was > concerned Snape was *right* about Black! He didn't know what had been > revealed in the SS during his little involuntary nap. Would it have > KILLED Dumbledore to take him aside later and let him in on the story > over a nice cognac? Well, at the time of this statement, Fudge was still standing there, holding the door to the Hospital open, waiting for Snape to leave with him to go off and get the Dementors. Dumbledore couldn't very well say, "Oh, yes, I now believe in Black's innocence, even though I don't have a shred of evidence to offer you, Minister." I think Dumbledore made that statement for two reasons. One, to remind Snape that his (Snape's) interpretation of the prank was not the same as Dumbledore's and two, an effective way to cut off this particular discussion at that time because of Fudge's presence. And, for all we know, Dumbledore did let Snape in on the story later. Snape may have refused to believe it. Or, Dumbldore realizes that the enmity between Snape and Black is too deep and too entrenched for him to be able to explain away over bottles of cognac... The whole matter of trust is brought to the forefront in the Hospital scene at the end of GoF. When Sirius reveals himself, much to Snape's loathing, Dumbledore says "He is here at my invitation as are you, Severus. I trust you both." I think this is Dumbledore's way of figuratively banging their heads together. He asks Sirius to reveal his Animagus form to Severus (thus telling Sirius that he trusts Severus will not spill the beans to the DEs, the MoM or anyone else who could do Sirius harm). And, this also tells Severus that he (Dumbledore) trusts that Snape will, indeed, not betray what he knows. > My question is what has Dumbledore got on Snape. He cleared his name > as a Death Eater, we know that. Is there something else? Or has he > simply threatened to recant his testimony? Snape sure shuts up in a > hurry with the slightest warning look or tone from him. I get very > little sense of trust there. I get a sense of fear. Why does > Dumbledore trust Snape? Maybe because Snape's scared to death of him. > Why does Snape "trust" Dumbledore? His life depends on it? I have to disagree here, although I can't shuffle up canon to support it. I have never gotten the feeling that Snape has a sense of fear. I get more of a sense that Snape feels he must live up to Dumbledore's expectations. And this causes some ambivalence in him, particularly in PoA. Snape is sure that Lupin is in league with his old friend, the crazed murderer Black. But, he has to tread lightly in trying to make Dumbledore see this because Dumbledore has been a strong supporter/protector of Lupin, both as a student and now, as a member of the staff. In a completely non-canon leap, perhaps another reason that Snape doesn't force the issue with Lupin earlier in the school year is because he doesn't have hard proof, and he remembers that he, also, was not completely clean in the events surrounding the prank. If Snape's actions were not totally above-board in the prank mysteries, then he may very well have felt that Dumbledore would not be easily swayed to think ill of Professor Lupin. > You know, there's this tendency to look at Dumbledore as sort of a > Santa Claus character, but he's not. He's tough as nails and mean as > a snake when he has to be. He has to be to get where he's gotten to. > Look at how he changed when confronting Crouch/Moody in GoF when that > ruse was revealed! I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that > Snape and Dumbledore are an awful lot alike in the end. Mean as a snake? Hmm. Well, I certainly agree that Dumbledore is way more than the twinkly-eyed Father Christmas type when he has to be. Anyone who is considered to be the only wizard that Voldemort fears has to have some steely aspects to his character... Marianne From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 05:36:27 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:36:27 -0000 Subject: Unplottability & Hogwarts' Location (was: Where's Durmstrang?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Ashfae wrote: > > I confess to being perplexed by the idea of unplottability, or at > least how it applies specifically to Hogwarts. Nowhere does it say that Hogwarts is Unplottable. That is mentioned in reference to the other two schools, but not Hogwarts. Hogwarts clearly has enchantments on it of various kinds, including the one which makes Muggles see it only as a crumbling ruin, but I would consider these to be Muggle Repelling Charms, most likely. Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon From kaityf at jorsm.com Wed Dec 18 06:03:38 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:03:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some personal thoughts about ... Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021216222625.0128c908@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48480 After reading Ursula's note (#48394), as well as the other notes about Snape at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/, I had some additional thoughts about Snape. Here they are: I think basic characteristic of Snape is a very rigid nature. This rigidity influences everything he does, thinks, and feels. I think it also affects the way people see and treat him. We don't know enough about Snape to know why he's so rigid; maybe that's just the way he is, and I think he was probably like that as a child. As a very rigid person, he feels that rules must be followed exactly and those who don't follow the rules must be punished. I think it is possible for a person to be very rigid and also basically good. That is, I don't think being rigid makes a person a bad person. I can imagine a young Snape being very upset with the Marauders because of their rule breaking and because they weren't getting punished for it. I'm sure he wanted to get them all in trouble by finding out just what they were up to when they sneaked out of school at night. I don't think that it helped that James was a well-liked person, not to mention a talented Quidditch player. That had to be terribly galling -- not only were these rule-breakers not getting in trouble, but they were also popular. I don't see this as simple bitterness, although I do think he is probably bitter. I think it has to do with a rigid sense of justice/injustice. If the world were truly just, then the Marauders would be both unpopular and properly punished. Snape, on the other hand, who follows all the rules and does the right thing, should be the one who reaps the rewards. Again, I don't see this as bitterness alone. So why would a basically good person become a Death Eater? Again, I don't think it was bitterness and I don't think it was a loss of faith in goodness. I think it has more to do with control and what Snape thought would bring justice to the world. True, he supposedly had an interest in the dark arts when he was at Hogwarts, but I don't necessarily think that's because he was evil or even wanted to be evil. I think he wanted to be able to control people and situations. The adults in charge at Hogwarts didn't control things very well if they allowed rule-breakers to go without punishment. We don't know whether the Marauders got punished or not, but we do know that they never got expelled and that's what Snape seems to think the appropriate punishment is for serious rule breaking. Snape, as a true Slytherin, would use any means to gain his ends, so if he thought becoming a Death Eater would give him the ability to control people and situations to create the kind of world he thought should exist, then I'm sure he would do it. Why did he leave? I suspect it would have been because he realized that a Voldemort world would be far less just than a world without Voldemort. We see Snape's rigid nature all the time. I think some of his anger and hatred of Harry comes from this, although it must have started as a carry over from what Snape felt about James. Still, Harry seems to be following in his father's footsteps by breaking rules, not getting punished, and being honored. Snape is constantly watching Harry and trying to catch him doing something wrong. In a just world, Harry would get caught and expelled. So why pick on Neville and Hermione? Again, I think some of this is due to Snape's being a true Slytherin, but I also think it has something to do with Snape's rigid nature and his idea of what the world should be like. Hermione is Muggle-born and Neville is nearly a squib. Hermione knows just about everything a student should know and can do just about everything, while Neville is almost the exact opposite. That has to make Snape very angry -- at both of them. Neville is the one who should be doing well and Hermione shouldn't be there at all. He wants to put Hermione in her Muggle place and he dislikes Neville for being so inept. Why does he seem to favor Malfoy? That's harder to answer, but I'm not sure it's so much favoring as it is being blind to some things Malfoy does. I also don't know that Malfoy breaks rules so openly. He's very careful when teachers are around. I would guess, too, that Snape thinks Draco should get more attention than Harry does, for the very reason that Malfoy doesn't get in as much trouble as Harry does. I think someone (I forget who) suggested that Snape sees his younger self in Draco. I'd bet that is part of it as well. I also think that it is this feeling that causes Snape to be somewhat blind to Draco's behavior and attitudes. What I can't understand about Snape is that as a former Death Eater, he would have to know that Lucius had been a Death Eater too. How can he favor Lucius' son? I have a theory and I've read the other theories, but none of them are fully satisfying. Carol [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cressida_tt at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 07:26:50 2002 From: cressida_tt at hotmail.com (Diane ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:26:50 -0000 Subject: The death in book 5 and..... Hello... I'm Snuffy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48481 Regarding Deaths in Book 5. According to JKR, it is a death she found extremely difficult. As she is compassionate and a mother it would make sense that the death of a child might be hardest to write particularly a girl. I feel insinctively that she might avoid that at this point in the series though. She gives her favourite characters as the trio and Hagrid and based on this I think that she might find Hagrid's death difficult to write, although I also feel she could bring him back as a ghost. THe books are a rite of passage for Harry and the deaths seem most likely to be a gradual stripping away of his childhood and support leaving him ever more vulnerable but more mature. Hagrid sort of symbolises his childhood as he was the one to collect him from GOdric's Hollow and again the one to collect him from the Dursleys and prepare him for school. He is also a fan of Harry particularly in GoF. Dumbledore I think will probably die but he holds so many keys to the plot that a think he has a while to go. I don't think the Weasleys are ready for the death of a family member quite yet although probably before the end of the series. Remus also seems a possibility as his Werewolf status makes him vulnerable. He and Sirius also play fatherly roles. As for Ginny, her role will be Harry's protector and eventually in the very death throes of book 7 his love interest. Her role was created for a good reason - the Weasleys could just as easily have had all boys or another son. She owes him a life debt from the Chamber and would also be overlooked by the Dark Forces as a protector and therefore not be an obvious target. Diane From dom-blokey at supanet.com Wed Dec 18 04:40:39 2002 From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:40:39 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Krum at Durmstrang (Was Re:Durmstrang) References: Message-ID: <01cc01c2a64f$9e56a1a0$134628d5@Blokey> No: HPFGUIDX 48482 > GulPlum AKA Richard pondered: > > > So my doubts remain: why does Krum travel 2,000 miles to go to > >school? > Me: Sorry if this one has been broached already (email problem means I'm sifting through 200 odd list emails at the moment!) but is there anything canon to say that Krum does travel 2000 miles (presuming of course that we have located Durmstrang correctly)? I can't recall it saying anywhere that he lives in Bulgaria, just that he is Bulgarian, there is a difference, maybe he lives five minutes walk from Durmstrang, 2000 miles from Bulgaria, but as thats where he was born, his nationality is Bulgarian... Dom From splinched at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 05:40:20 2002 From: splinched at hotmail.com (eudaemonia_splinched ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:40:20 -0000 Subject: The death in book 5 and..... Hello... I'm Eudaemonia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48483 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, " wrote: > > Personally my thoughts on the dead character would have to be > Dumbledore. I think it only makes sense that the one person > Voldemort fears the most should pass away as Harry is coming of age > as it were... I mean, there is a good amount of story and > development that could go along with this. It just makes sense, > doesn't it? > Hi, I'm new... let me jump in :-) I agree that Dumbledore's likely to be the one to die based on... well, Snuffy said it in the abovementioned best. In book one: "After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure"; in book two: "you will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me" -- sounds as if he's giving warning of an eminent depart. And there must be something to the fact that the title of book 5 is "The Order of the Phoenix" and Dumbledore happens to have a phoenix (that ironically gave feathers to both Harry and Voldemort's wands). I even have this way-out-there theory that Dumbledore can transfigure into a phoenix as well so if he dies, he'll be reborn from the ashes. "Order" may be taken as an organized union of people - - understandable from what was taking action in the ending of Goblet of Fire -- but it could also be taken as the lifeline order of the phoenix. :-/ Don't mind me, I'm just a bit taken with the titles after Chamber of Secrets ;-) Cheers, Eu From urbana at charter.net Wed Dec 18 05:06:33 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:06:33 -0000 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: > BBOY_MN: Something big is up with Percy too, not sure what, but > something really big. I like you idea, and while I know people are > going to die, I really hope it's not Percy. I want Percy to see that > his ambition, perfection, and absolute adherence to the rules are > hurting him. Hurting him both professionally, personally, and > emotionally. Percy needs to take a lesson from Hermione and lighten up. Percy has always struck me as something of an anomaly in the Weasley family. He just seems so insanely ambitious and perfectionistic compared to everyone else in the family (especially Gred and Forge, who are the WW's version of the Merry Pranksters... let's hope they don't put any LSD in that Ton-Tongue Taffy ;-) Percy is wound soooo tight, I'm almost surprised he got into Gryffindor (but he probably got in because he told the Sorting Hat that's where he wanted to be). He doesn't seem to have the instinct to "bend the rules a little when necessary" that other Gryffindors -- well, at least, The Trio -- have. I, too, hope that Percy lightens up. The whole business of him covering for and sucking up to Barty Crouch Sr. in GoF really disturbed me. I hope he doesn't side with Cornelius Fudge in Book 5; I think that would cause a significant rift between Percy and the rest of his family - and possibly many of his Hogwarts friends as well. Anne U (hoping we don't discover Evil!Percy down the road) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Dec 18 08:56:30 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 03:56:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry the Seeker Message-ID: <19f.d946ef1.2b31923e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48485 Melody: > Joanne wrote: > >Aside from his Zen "one-with-the-snitch" approach that someone else > >mentioned, he hasn't shown the slightest inclination toward obsessive > >behavior. He would have to change a lot over the course of the > >remaining books for it to be plausible. > > > The mirror chapter in PS/SS was a start of obsession. He felt > compelled to go back to it even when his best friend said he > shouldn't. He sat for hours and just stared at it. That is > obsession. Just at an early stage, so Harry *does* have it in him. > Especially when it comes to things he yearns for. Maybe, Dumbledore > stamped out his obsessive nature soon enough by showing the boy the > ill logic of it, or maybe it is still there and can only be provoked > by deep, deep feelings. Eloise: Yes...but the Mirror is an interesting case. I think the lesson that we are supposed to learn from the Mirror of Erised is again to do with *what* our desires are and how we handle them: our motivation in seeking. It teaches (when there is someone of wisdom to point this out) that we cannot waste our lives in the pusuit of *empty* dreams. (There are also other considerations: the fact that Dumbledore may have allowed Harry to find the mirror precisely to allow him to start to come to terms with the loss of the family that he had never yet mourned, a part of Harry's psychology which is still underdeveloped and the plot-driven necessity of Harry's exploring the mechanism of the mirror in advance of meeting it in the secret chamber.) Now yes, I would agree that it is Ron who recognises its dangers, but that I would attribute to the fact that Ron has a little more worldly wisdom regarding magical objects. It sounds like precisely the sort of object that his father would have warned him about. It is the mirror itself which is the author of the obsession by encouraging the unwary to dwell on the unattainable. In fact, under the circumstances, Harry seems to have put the mirror episode and his longing for his parents pretty remarkably behind him, doesn't he, until he starts reliving the night of their deaths in PoA.. And then at the climax of PS/SS, it is the Mirror which highlights the difference in *motivation* between Harry and Quirrell. > > Rachel wrote: > >I think that the reason Harry sought to protect himself from the > >dementors was not so much about a single-minded obsession. Wood > >wasn't going to let him play if he didn't find a way to take care of > >his 'problem'. I know kids on a sports team hate being benched- this > >could have been the motivation here. > Melody: > I would tend to agree with you Rachel except the text does not support > that assertion. Yes, Wood *greatly* wants to win that cup, and yes, > Harry is completely aware that Wood wants him to catch that snitch. I > just find it a stretch that a 13 year-old boy would spend all his free > time for the main purpose of making an older student happy. Frankly, > it seems Harry wanted to protect his game and that was the *main* > motivation. > > When Harry first came out of his short coma after falling from his > broom and learned what happened, he asked- > --- > (PoA, Ch 9) > "But the match," said Harry. "What happened? Are we doing a replay?" > No one said anything. The horrible truth sank into Harry like a > stone. "We didn't - *lose*?" > > Harry lay there, not saying a word. They had lost...for the first > time ever, he had lost a Quidditch game. > --- > > And when Harry was with Lupin at their first Patronus practice, Harry > said- > --- > (PoA, Ch 12) > "I've got to! What if the dementors turn up at our match against > Ravenclaw? I can't afford to fall off again. If we lose this game > we've lost the Quidditch Cup!" > > This meant that with Lupin's anti-dementor classes, which in > themselves were more draining that six Quidditch practices, Harry had > just one night a week to do all his homework. > --- > > From all that I would say Harry himself is quite motivated to win on > his own and does not need the pressure or a threat from Wood to > perfect his game. He is quite into winning on his own. > > And besides, if Wood threatened to "bench" Harry, the threat would be > empty. Without Harry, Gryffindor would definitely loose. There is > still no back-up seeker. I hear all that you're saying, Melody, but again we have a disagrement over the motivation issue. Now yes, I do agree that Harry is highly motivated on his own behalf, because this is the first thing in his life that he's ever been really good at and the first thing that has ever given him any peer recognition (and we all know that in a school situation, being a sports star heavily outweighs having been the one to defeat the Dark Lord as an infant!) However.....I think we are supposed to read Harry as very much a team player. He wants to win, because he wants his team to win, for the the honour of his house. As you say there is *no* reserve seeker and since the seeker is normally the one who wins the match, the responsibility placed upon his shoulders is huge. *Harry* losing a Quidditch match means *Gryffindor* losing a match. I believe Harry is *very* motivated when it comes to house loyalty. I don't believe that the emphasis that is put on the results in terms of personal standing amongst his peers of his losing house points detracts from the loyalty that he expresses or his intense desire to see his house succeed. But motivated as he is towards his house, when bigger issues are at stake, he will risk losing popularity, risk the short-term interests of his house in pursuit of a higher goal. As he did in deciding to go after, as he thought, Snape to protect the Philosopher's Stone. If Harry's obsessed with anything, it's catching that elusive snitch which signals the defeat of Voldemort. Which is sort of the point, isn't it? :-) Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Dec 18 09:21:59 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:21:59 EST Subject: DD a mischief maker (was: DD KNEW about the Map) Message-ID: <122.1c1f8355.2b319837@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48486 Snuffles, suggesting good reasons why Dumbledore may have condoned Harry's use of the Map conludes, > I just really think DD was quite a mischievious one in his day. I agree with you! He still is. Your arguments are still based on the premise that he *did* know that Harry had the Map and I personally remain to be convinced that he did. But yes, I guess that Snape could have expected that was the case, or that his attitude would be as you suggest if he told him, as it would seem to be the risky and questionable kind of behaviour that Dumbledore does seem to engage in. Of course, if he *did* know, then that would lay the blame for Crouch Sr's death at least partially at his door, instead of at Snape's. And Diggory's, as had Crouch managed to warn Dumbledore about what was happening, then Crouch Jr could have been apprehended and GoF would have had a different ending. It is, I suppose, highly probable that Dumbledore *did* know of the Map's existence, it having been confiscated by Filch. And I suppose that since he knew some of what James got up to with the Invisibility Cloak, he might have seen them using it. He might have known about Fred and George having it too, I suppose. Perhaps the "What map is this?" question was Dumbledore suddenly realising just what he had allowed to happen. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Wed Dec 18 09:57:53 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:57:53 EST Subject: Hagrid? Age? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48487 Ok. This is my first non-reply post... :::crossing fingers::::: By all accounts I have found, Hagrid and Tom Riddle were in school at Hogwarts in the 1940s. This seemed logical as wizards live longer than muggles and Hagrid seemed a bit wise and older than James and Lily who from what I have read apparently were in school at Hogwarts in the 1970s. This theory was fine and ducky until tonight. I started re-reading GoF, and I noticed that Hagrid says that he never thought he would live to see another Triwizard tournament.... it is also said in the book that there hasn't been one in a century.... This would make Hagrid and Voldie much older than we thought... wouldn't it? A very nervous, Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 09:52:44 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:52:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's Durmstrang? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021218095244.1111.qmail@web14610.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48488 >This therefore begs a completely different question: why does Krum, from >southern Europe, attend a school in northern Europe? >> Even if there is a school in Southern Europe, we know that it is not as prestigious a school as the three major European schools (Beauxbatons, Hogwarts, Durmstrang). Krum's parents probably wanted to send him to the best school. Obviously, Krum is a very talented Quidditch player, and this was probably seen even when he was younger. Perhaps the wanted to send him somewhere where his talents will be fully cultivated. Draco could have been sent to Durmstrang (albeitm for less than wholesome reasons), so we know that sometimes students are sent to schools other than ones closest to them because it is a better match for that student or their parents ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 10:38:13 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:38:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid? Age? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021218103813.79589.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48489 srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote: Ok. This is my first non-reply post... :::crossing fingers::::: By all accounts I have found, Hagrid and Tom Riddle were in school at Hogwarts in the 1940s. This theory was fine and ducky until tonight. I started re-reading GoF, and I noticed that Hagrid says that he never thought he would live to see another Triwizard tournament.... it is also said in the book that there hasn't been one in a century.... This would make Hagrid and Voldie much older than we thought... wouldn't it? A very nervous, Snuffles>> ME: There are many "time" problems in HP (some may be resolved, some may not), but I do not think this is one of them. You can interpret Hagrid's comment in two different ways. I do not think that Hagrid has witnessed the last Triwizard Cup. The Cup has been cancelled for decades and decades, and yet it is still a very famous event that wizards find very exciting, so it has not faded from the wizarding memory. So, when Hagrid says that he never thought he would live to see another tournament, he is not neccessarily referring to the last tournament HE saw, but the last tournament that took place (before he was born). BUT, unless it is a Flint (which I doubt more and more), Molly Weasley's comment about "Ogg", completely throws off the timelines starting from at least when Hagrid was in school, until Molly and Arthur Weasley graduated. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gandharvika at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 11:59:07 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:59:07 +0000 Subject: (FILK) Weasley's Wheezes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48490 Weasley's Wheezes (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Please Please Me_ by the Beatles) Sing along to the Midi here: http://hot.mididb.com/beatles/PleasePleaseMe.php Fred and George come down the stairs one morning and enter the kitchen, expecting breakfast. Instead, they are greeted by their mother, Molly Weasley, who has a rather large stack of papers in her hands and an angry look on her face. Mrs. Weasley: Last night I found these forms in your room. Fred and George (To One Another): If that's what we think it is then we're doomed (Fred and George lunge forward to grab the papers but Mrs. Weasley keeps them away at arm's length) Fred (and George): C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon)! Mrs. Weasley (Reading the title on the paper): Weasley's Wheezes...Wizard Joke Shop. You've got the brains but you're not using them You'll get in trouble misusing items Fred (and George) (Pleading with their mother to give the papers back): C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon)! Mrs. Weasley (Reading the title on the paper): Weasley's Wheezes...Wizard Joke Shop. We heard all of those explosions Never thought all that commotion was this stuff Fred and George (To One Another): She's pissed off Mrs. Weasley: Worry all the daylong through Don't know where we went wrong with you Fred and George: But Mom, it's what we want to do Mrs. Weasley: It's been the same for years with you two You'd better pull yourselves together soon Fred (and George): C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) C'mon (C'mon) Mrs. Weasley (Reading the title on the paper): Weasley's Wheezes...Wizard Joke Shop. Weasley's Wheezes...Wizard Joke Shop. Weasley's Wheezes...Wizard Joke Shop. Mrs. Weasley throws the stack of papers into the fireplace where they are quickly burned, much to the twins' disappoinment. -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From ksnidget at aol.com Wed Dec 18 12:25:25 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:25:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid? Age? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48491 In a message dated 12/18/02 5:19:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, srsiriusblack at aol.com writes: > This theory was fine and ducky until tonight. I started re-reading GoF, and > I > noticed that Hagrid says that he never thought he would live to see another > > Triwizard tournament.... it is also said in the book that there hasn't been > > one in a century.... > Well, prior to the last winter Olympics I might have said that didn't think I would ever seen them have skeleton in the Olympics again. But I wasn't alive the last time they had it in there. People do know about things that happened before they were born, some of which they would like to see happen again. Things that they for one reason or another do not think they will see happen in their lifetime. I don't see that again as meaning he ever saw one before. Just that it is something that happened in the past. Something that he thought was unlikely to happen again, especially before he died. Ksnidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 18 12:43:44 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:43:44 -0000 Subject: Hagrid? Age? In-Reply-To: <20021218103813.79589.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans wrote: > > BUT, unless it is a Flint (which I doubt more and more), Molly Weasley's comment about "Ogg", completely throws off the timelines starting from at least when Hagrid was in school, until Molly and Arthur Weasley graduated. > > > > ANGELA > I don't see that that's a problem with the timeline. Tom Riddle in CoS says Dumbledore persuaded Dippet that Hagrid should be 'trained' as gamekeeper. So for Hagrid to be trained implied that someone else was gamekeeper at the time (to do the training). This was probably Ogg, who continued as Gamekeeper until Molly and Arthur's time. During Arthur and Molly's time, Hagrid was probably either assistant to Ogg, or alternatively was working at some other magical estate until Ogg's retirement - when Dumbledore, now Headmaster, asked him to come back to Hogwarts. Pip!Squeak From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Dec 18 13:22:21 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:22:21 -0500 Subject: Harry the Seeker Message-ID: <001201c2a698$7f4281a0$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48493 Regarding the motivation for Harry's anti-Dementor lessons, Melody wrote: Frankly, > it seems Harry wanted to protect his game and that was the *main* > motivation. > [snip] And when Harry was with Lupin at their first Patronus practice, Harry > said- > --- > (PoA, Ch 12) > "I've got to! What if the dementors turn up at our match against > Ravenclaw? I can't afford to fall off again. If we lose this game > we've lost the Quidditch Cup!" Of course Harry wants to win. But if I were to pinpoint what Harry is most obsessed about in asking for special training from Lupin, I would not mention Quidditch at all. The Dementors are the thing that Harry fears most. Harry is tremendously affected by the terrible memories the Dementors summon in his mind. So what he is really asking for from Lupin is help in overcoming his greatest fear. There is nothing at all obsessive about that. Outwardly, however, Harry expresses his need to overcome his fear of the Dementors in terms of his obligation to his teammates. Similarly, when Harry wakes up in the hospital wing with the entire team at his bedside, and > Harry lay there, not saying a word. They had lost...for the first > time ever, he had lost a Quidditch game. > Harry is reacting to his feeling that he failed his team, and he did so because he -- and only he -- becomes overwhelmed by the Dementors whenever one approaches. > > > > Before, I pointed out that Harry knew he had this problem ever since > the train. He even knew the dementors were at the school and would be > a continual possible threat to him, but Harry did not seek help > against them until they threatened his Quidditch game. He then sought > after Lupin to try and find a way to clear up this problem because of > that motivation. That motivation is very key to me. The Dementors didn't just threaten Harry's Quidditch game. They threatened his life when they showed up on the pitch. Because the Dementors were not permitted onto Hogwarts property -- their job was limited to guarding the entrances -- before the Quidditch match Harry could have reasonably believed the Dementors posed no immediate threat to him as long as he remained at Hogwarts. It is the Quidditch match that drives home to Harry the personal danger the Dementors present. I was not trying to say > "Quidditch" itself would become an obsession, but rather, that the > clarity of mind of a single-minded pursuit of an object could. His > taught style of "seeking" could become an obsession. To use the sports analogy, a key to success in virtually any sport is the ability to concentrate completely on the task at hand. That's Harry's natural talent, and it's what the Dementors' presence threatens to take from him. At the risk of merely repeating what others have said, tne thing that distinguishes Harry from other competitors an any arena -- Quidditch matches, the TWT and Voldemort -- is that he never defines his task in terms of himself. So, even in a Quidditch match, his task is not necessarily finding the Snitch. When his team needs to win by a 150 point margin to take the Quidditch cup in PoA, Harry doesn't focus on getting the Snitch himself until his team as built up the necessary margin. And it's illustrated very well, as others have already pointed out, in the Second Task in which Harry abandons personal goals when it appears to him that others are in danger (and is appropriately rewarded for it, no matter how silly he feels about taking the danger too seriously). Accordingly, I see nothing in the books to suggest Harry is "obsessed"; to the contrary, he has an uncanny ability to know what is most important at any particular moment. It's a simple gift, but it's the one that sets him apart from the competition. Witness Voldemort in the graveyard, who lets a golden opportunity to kill Harry slip away because he won't be satisfied with getting rid of Harry and needs a dose of glory to go with it. A successful Seeker needs more than the ability to single-mindedly pursue one's goals. He also needs the ability to discern what those goals should beat any given time. It's these qualities that make Harry the youngest and most successful Seeker in a century. Debbie who is still sorting through the comments but would like to thank everyone who responded, on and off list, to her Quidditch essay [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From renitentraven at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 11:49:18 2002 From: renitentraven at hotmail.com (armillarygirl ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:49:18 -0000 Subject: Hermione's wand and related question. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48494 I have to pose this question after fruitless searching of H.P archives: Does anyone have any information regarding the properties of Hermione's wand? Why? 1. I find it very odd that for all it's 'screen time' Hermione's wand has never been noticed enough by Harry to describe with as much detail as, for example, her teeth. 2. Despite Ollivander's assertion, "You'd never get such good results with another Wizard's wand",(P.S.,64), first year Hermione was able to flawlessly perform the alohomora charm with Harry's wand. A wand fine-tuned to Harry and, by the nature of their connection, to Voldemort. This question is eating me because: I have an inkling that Hermione will *inadvertantly* be the betrayer J.K. Rowling has alluded to in interviews, with a possibly darker plot development. Again why? 1. In a way she already has. In her third year Hermione didn't trust Harry and Ron's judgement or, importantly, their ability to listen to her concerns, resulting in her going behind their backs regarding Harry's Firebolt. 2. G.O.F.pg 485,".....I left him with Viktor Krum." "You did?" said Dumbledore sharply, and he began to take longer strides still..... I'm not sure I take Hermione's insistence of, "He's really very nice",is a brilliant character analysis given Dumbledore's reservations, and her limited contact with Mr. Krum. Hermione is smart but she blunders, House Elf Liberation Front etc. I think Hermione may blunder again, when an increasingly weird hormonal Ron and dare I say it somewhat absorbed Harry, push Hermione to another outlet for her concerns. The lack of Hagrid as a shoulder to cry on (ala P.O.A.) may prove disastorous when a conversation starting , "I'm concerned about Harry because.....",with the ever attentive Viktor Krum, ends with Hermione precipitating a catastrophe when Krum passes her revelation along. G.O.F.pg 480,"Hermy-own-ninny talks about you very often." Krum to Harry. A powerful, intelligent witch isolated further from; two very cheesed of friends (however justified), absent and possibly indifferent parents, "My parents don't read the Daily Prophet", G.O.F.pg 392, and the potential that she's been carting around a yew and phoenix feather wand, as she obviously has the power; could highlight her for posible subjectation, afterall Malfoy seems keen and Voldemort himself was half muggle. I wo'nt to be wrong because I *love* Hermione so a one word answer of, "Hermione's wand is willow with a cute lucky rabbit's tail fluffy core", would be of enormous relief, if it's true. If you've read this far thank you, and I salute you. Lisa, (Newcastle,Australia) It's my first post, I'm so proud! From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 14:42:40 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:42:40 -0000 Subject: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "armillarygirl " wrote: > I have to pose this question after fruitless searching of H.P > archives: Does anyone have any information regarding the properties > of Hermione's wand? The makeup of Hermione's wand is not given in canon. I'm going to quickly jump in with this just because I've been pelted with owls lately (the email kind) from people who are wondering why I don't list Hermione's wand on the wand page of the Lexicon when they just KNOW it's such-and-such because they read it on some web site or other. So consider this a preemptory strike: we don't know what her wand is made of, no matter what the current rumor mill would have you believe. Steve Vander Ark Canon cranky this morning From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 16:23:15 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:23:15 -0000 Subject: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "armillarygirl " wrote: > I have to pose this question after fruitless searching of H.P > archives: Does anyone have any information regarding the properties > of Hermione's wand? > A very thought-provoking question indeed! I had never thought about this before... > Why? > 1. I find it very odd that for all it's 'screen time' Hermione's wand > has never been noticed enough by Harry to describe with as much > detail as, for example, her teeth. > > 2. Despite Ollivander's assertion, "You'd never get such good results > with another Wizard's wand",(P.S.,64), first year Hermione was able > to flawlessly perform the alohomora charm with Harry's wand. A wand > fine-tuned to Harry and, by the nature of their connection, to > Voldemort. > > This question is eating me because: > I have an inkling that Hermione will *inadvertantly* be the betrayer > J.K. Rowling has alluded to in interviews, with a possibly darker > plot development. > > Again why? > 1. In a way she already has. > In her third year Hermione didn't trust Harry and Ron's judgement or, > importantly, their ability to listen to her concerns, resulting in > her going behind their backs regarding Harry's Firebolt. > Or take much notice of Ron's fear for Scabbers' life and the danger Crookshanks seemed to be posing to Ron's pet... > 2. G.O.F.pg 485,".....I left him with Viktor Krum." > "You did?" said Dumbledore sharply, and he began to take longer > strides still..... > I'm not sure I take Hermione's insistence of, "He's really very > nice",is a brilliant character analysis given Dumbledore's > reservations, and her limited contact with Mr. Krum. > > Oddly enough, this was in the chapter that I read to my daughters last night (they're 12 and 10, but who cares, they like me to read HP to them)! One of them asked me if Dumbledore sped up because he was afraid Krum would do something to Crouch. I said that I thought that was meant to be the first impression, but that Crouch's appearance in this way obviously meant DANGER to Dumbledore, and that he was more likely concerned for Krum's safety. > Hermione is smart but she blunders, House Elf Liberation Front etc. > I think Hermione may blunder again, when an increasingly weird > hormonal Ron and dare I say it somewhat absorbed Harry, push Hermione > to another outlet for her concerns. > The lack of Hagrid as a shoulder to cry on (ala P.O.A.) may prove > disastorous when a conversation starting , "I'm concerned about Harry > because.....",with the ever attentive Viktor Krum, ends with Hermione > precipitating a catastrophe when Krum passes her revelation along. > > G.O.F.pg 480,"Hermy-own-ninny talks about you very often." Krum to > Harry. > You could certainly be right! My take on Krum is that he is okay, but after all, he did go to Durmstrang. I can definitely see possibilities for him to involve Hermione with some dark wizards, with only innocent but mistaken intentions on his own part. > A powerful, intelligent witch isolated further from; > two very cheesed of friends (however justified), > absent and possibly indifferent parents, "My parents > don't read the Daily Prophet", G.O.F.pg 392, > and the potential that she's been carting around a yew and phoenix > feather wand, as she obviously has the power; could highlight her for > posible subjectation, afterall Malfoy seems keen and Voldemort > himself was half muggle. > Wait. Are you saying *Ollivander* could have sold *Voldemort's* old wand to Hermione? But we know Voldemort has it himself, and his and Harry's are the only two to have Fawkes' feathers. Or maybe you mean that *any* yew and phoenix-feather wand would go to someone with vulnerabilities to darkness? In this case I would have to assert that I think *everyone* has vulnerabilities to darkness, and that Tom Riddle also had great potential for good, which he utterly rejected. > I wo'nt to be wrong because I *love* Hermione so a one word answer > of, "Hermione's wand is willow with a cute lucky rabbit's tail fluffy > core", would be of enormous relief, if it's true. > > If you've read this far thank you, and I salute you. > > Lisa, (Newcastle,Australia) > It's my first post, I'm so proud! Congratulations! Though I have some quibbles, I certainly see your point, which I hadn't noticed before, that Hermione really does have a rather small circle of support, which she does seem to lose sometimes, doesn't she (especially if she loses Hagrid)? And, besides worrying about what Viktor Krum might expose her to, we have a Rita-Skeeter-Beetle who, I'm afraid, will be looking for an opportunity to *destroy* her, one way or another. We've had some recent posts on how ill-advised she was regarding Rita, and what trouble this must be going to cause later. Although I really can't argue with what Hermione did about the Firebolt, she certainly does seem to act without enough attempt to think out the possible objections to her reasoning, doesn't she? I'm not worried about her wand at all (yet -- I'm just thinking that Harry never really gave it a thought), but you've certainly got me worried about what might happen to Hermione! annemehr the poster formerly (briefly) known as Anne, but it wasn't specific enough for such a large list! From binfuso at earthlink.com Wed Dec 18 17:02:07 2002 From: binfuso at earthlink.com (linfuso ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:02:07 -0000 Subject: Will someone be poisoned? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48497 Forgive me if this topic has ever come up before but with all the emphasis on Snape and potion making, it seems likely that someone will be poisoned in future books. Will they live or die? What kind of poison will be used? Any theories? Personally, I think the "sleeping death" potion will come up again. Maybe Rowling will make one of her characters appear to die by poisoning, only to have someone figure out they're only "sleeping" and cook up an antidote. "linfuso" From probono at rapidnet.com Wed Dec 18 17:32:09 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (probonoprobono ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:32:09 -0000 Subject: Will someone be poisoned? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "linfuso " wrote: > Forgive me if this topic has ever come up before but with all the > emphasis on Snape and potion making, it seems likely that someone > will be poisoned in future books. > > Will they live or die? What kind of poison will be used? Any > theories? > > Personally, I think the "sleeping death" potion will come up again. > Maybe Rowling will make one of her characters appear to die by > poisoning, only to have someone figure out they're only "sleeping" > and cook up an antidote. > > "linfuso" Now Me: I think it's probable. Lucius seems to be quite the collector of illicit poisons himself, much of which he sold to Borgin & Burkes at the beginning of CoS because his possession of them, in his own words, "might make it appear....". Hmmm...I wonder where he acquired these poisons in the first place? -Tanya From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 18:19:08 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:19:08 -0000 Subject: Will someone be poisoned? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "linfuso " wrote: > Forgive me if this topic has ever come up before but with all the > emphasis on Snape and potion making, it seems likely that someone > will be poisoned in future books. I can see someone being poisened in the very near future, possible Hermione, and Snape being the only one who notices her symptoms are of this particular poisen and hopefully an antidote. > Will they live or die? What kind of poison will be used? Any > theories? > > Personally, I think the "sleeping death" potion will come up again. > Maybe Rowling will make one of her characters appear to die by > poisoning, only to have someone figure out they're only "sleeping" > and cook up an antidote. The first time I read PS/SS I had the strongest feeling that this was foreshadowing a future plot line. Why would Snape choose this particular potion to as Harry about? I feel it would be very rare for a first year to need this sort of information. The "stone in a goats stomach" seems a common cure for poisens seeings as it will save you from most and this information is probably highlighted in most potion books. But I can hardly see Snape wanting to teach First years about "a sleeping draught so stong it is known as the Draught of the living death", at least I think that is what he says. It has a very "Romeo and Juliet" feeling to it. Or should that be a very "Ron and Hermione"... Theresnothingtoit From sgarfio at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 18:51:33 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Choosing Your Own House (WAS: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021218185133.74435.qmail@web21410.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48500 Anne U wrote: > Percy is wound soooo > tight, I'm almost surprised he got into Gryffindor (but he probably > got in because he told the Sorting Hat that's where he wanted to be). The idea of people telling the Sorting Hat which House to put them in has come up a number of times on this list. I just don't buy it. I am convinced that Harry is unique in this respect. The Sorting Hat was indecisive about where to put Harry; it never would have put him in Gryffindor if he didn't also have Gryffindor qualities. I think that the Hat's comment in CoS (something like "I stand by what I said last year - you would have done well in Slytherin") was meant to goad Harry, or to remind him that Gryffindor was his own choice. If everybody got to choose their house, then Hufflepuff would be pretty empty, wouldn't it? What 11-year-old in his/her right mind would *ask* to be in the "losers'" House (which is the reputation it has, after all)? I just don't see anybody but Harry getting a choice in the matter. The Hat simply reads their predominant characteristics and then Sorts them accordingly. The choices they make within that framework are what make each student unique. The only reason Harry got a choice (and it *wasn't* a choice among all four Houses; it was simply a choice *against* Slytherin, after which the Hat chose to put him in Gryffindor) is because of the ambiguity created by Voldemort's legacy. If it hadn't been for Voldemort's failed attack on him, the Hat probably would have put him in Gryffindor without reservation. There is also the theory that has been proposed that Harry is heir to both Slytherin and Gryffindor, which is only a theory, but it would also explain the Hat's indecisiveness. My guess is that Harry simply displayed the potential for both Slytherin and Gryffindor characteristics, and both were predominant enough to qualify him for either House, so the Hat allowed Harry's input rather than just tossing a proverbial coin. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From voldemort at tut.by Wed Dec 18 19:48:36 2002 From: voldemort at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:48:36 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <481904239.20021218214836@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 48501 Greetings! > annemehr wrote: aayc> but you've certainly got me worried about what might aayc> happen to Hermione! As for me, I have a strong and absolutely unreasonable suspicion that Hermione is going to get into Azkaban sooner or later, for certain period of time. Still cannot say why did I get this impression, but it's nagging me for two months already. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. ----- "Nice toffees", said Dudley and swung his tongue over the shoulder. From rinceceol at netzero.net Wed Dec 18 20:37:48 2002 From: rinceceol at netzero.net (rinceceol) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:37:48 -0600 Subject: The MoM & Hogwarts Message-ID: <004901c2a6d8$85216420$e485f6d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48502 Jim Ferer wrote: <> I responded: I don't remember exactly where it's said, but it IS said that Arthur Weasley and another assistant (or maybe two...) were the only staffers in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office. Dunno if that's indicative of the other offices, or what. But also, when Crouch Sr, wnt missing, instead of handing over his duties to a more senior official, Percy (a VERY junior staffer) took them over...indicating to me that there weren't many people in that office either. And just to put in my two knuts, I always imagined the MoM as covering all the British Isles...Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, but not any farther than that. Otherwise, why have we never heard mention of any MoM workers who weren't British? I would imagine that if JKR had wanted us to think it were more multinational, she would have mentioned someting along the lines of a Russian, Bulgarian, American, what-have-you working at some post...or of Fudge having to travel to other continents on business. *shrug* Ashfae wrote: <> I replied: pg. 166 GoF US Hardback: "'But Hogwarts *is* hidden,' said Hermione in surprise. 'Everyone knows that...well, everyone who's read *Hogwarts, A History,* anyway.' 'Just you, then,' said Ron. 'So go on--how d'you hide a place like Hogwarts?' 'It's bewitched,' said Hermione. 'If a Muggle looks at it, all they see is a moldering old ruin with a sign over the entrance saying DANGER, DO NOT ENTER, UNSAFE.' " So, that's how they hide Hogwarts from Muggles anyhow...although I don't know what's to keep people who've been there (or to Durmstrag or Beauxbatons) from telling others where it is. And, come to think of it, Karkaroff and Maxime SHOULD know where it is...otherwise, how they have travelled there for the tournament? It would have made more sense, to me anyway, if the delegations from D&B had travelled to a location away from all the schools and then Hogwarts had provided transport from there, if they're so desperate to protect "their secrets." ~rinceceol --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/8/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From melclaros at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 21:59:17 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:59:17 -0000 Subject: Snape as Byronic hero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001 " > clear that JKR is not trying to portray Snape as a physically > attractive man. Nor, to my recollection, is there any instance in the > books where any implication is made that any of the other characters > see him as attractive. > Marianne, who freely admits she doesn't understand the Snape > attraction factor that's out there, but who also thinks Snape is the most layered, interesting character in all of Potterverse. Oh, but there you have it, Marianne. His attractiveness in a nutshell. Snape's attractiveness (putting aside the movie portrayal-- a whole 'nother Snape layer) is *not* necessarily in his physcial appearance. Of course, as someone pointed out earlier, if Rowling was really trying to make him *completly* physically unattractive, she should have created him more in the image of Pettigrew. The closest one (ok, me) could come to using any physical trait as described by Rowling as part of his attraction would be her descriptions of his voice and the way he uses it and the same with the way he moves. The attraction of the *character* is, as you yourself say is in his complexity, his multifaceted, multilayered portrayal as laid out by Rowling, one tantalizing hint at a time and the mystery surrounding his motives. Does that make him Byronic? Perhaps. I think Snape himself might give a little self-satisfied smirk and like to consider himself "mad, bad and dangerous to know." Not necessarily Byronic, more Byron like. Melpomene From srsiriusblack at aol.com Wed Dec 18 20:36:36 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:36:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's wand and related question. Message-ID: <4d.291960c8.2b323654@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48504 In a message dated 18/12/2002 08:48:49 Eastern Standard Time, renitentraven at hotmail.com writes: > > I have to pose this question after fruitless searching of H.P > archives: Does anyone have any information regarding the properties > of Hermione's wand? > > Why? > 1. I find it very odd that for all it's 'screen time' Hermione's wand > has never been noticed enough by Harry to describe with as much > detail as, for example, her teeth. I don't much have an answer for this one as much as to say, very good point. However, perhaps JKR has not thought that Hermoine's wand is of particular consequence? > > 2. Despite Ollivander's assertion, "You'd never get such good results > with another Wizard's wand",(P.S.,64), first year Hermione was able > to flawlessly perform the alohomora charm with Harry's wand. A wand > fine-tuned to Harry and, by the nature of their connection, to > Voldemort. Ok. This is something that has been bugging me as well; however we see in GoF, someone ( Crouch Jr) uses Harry's wand to conjure the Dark Mark using a spell only the Death Eater's know- "Morsmorde!" Mister Ollivander examines Harry's wand and uses it, as well. In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, there is a great deal of wand switching. My best guess is that it is possible for people to use wands not their own if the will of mind is strong enough....... Although, this still leaves the issue of Harry finding his wand at Ollivander's after blowing things up with other wands.... > > Again why? > 1. In a way she already has. > In her third year Hermione didn't trust Harry and Ron's judgement or, > importantly, their ability to listen to her concerns, resulting in > her going behind their backs regarding Harry's Firebolt. This was sheer concern and using of her mind. McGonagall agrees with Hermoine that in light of Black's escape, Harry's already torrid past with Voldie, and the fact that there was NO card or note attached to the parcel, it is best that the Firebolt be tested for jinxes, hexes, etc. Granted, I thought that it was a little excessive, but then, I had an inkling that Sirius would not be the "big bad man". > > 2. G.O.F.pg 485,".....I left him with Viktor Krum." > "You did?" said Dumbledore sharply, and he began to take longer > strides still..... > I'm not sure I take Hermione's insistence of, "He's really very > nice",is a brilliant character analysis given Dumbledore's > reservations, and her limited contact with Mr. Krum. > This is another good point. It has already been established that Karkaroff was in Azkaban as a convicted death eater. Sirius stresses to Harry that this is important... Thus you would think that Harry would suspect Krum to be a little shady.... Yet, Harry is suspicious of Krum until they discuss Hermione, and Harry realises that he is in no danger with Krum. Ludo, however, upon seeing that Krum wants a word with Harry does express some concern by asking "Should I wait for you then?"- or something, I don't have the book infront of me.... I think that neither Harry, nor Hermoine have the doubts of the adults when Krum is concerned. Krum charms Harry in their conversation right before Barty Crouch appears in the woods by telling him what a good flyer he is. Perhaps this is a tactic to gain trust... we will hopefully find out in Book 5. > > Hermione is smart but she blunders, House Elf Liberation Front etc. > I think Hermione may blunder again, when an increasingly weird > hormonal Ron and dare I say it somewhat absorbed Harry, push Hermione > to another outlet for her concerns. > The lack of Hagrid as a shoulder to cry on (ala P.O.A.) may prove > disastorous when a conversation starting , "I'm concerned about Harry > because.....",with the ever attentive Viktor Krum, ends with Hermione > precipitating a catastrophe when Krum passes her revelation along. Good point, again, but I am with the group of people that believe there is no way anything will happen to Hagrid ( for I will cry and cry...) But, if Krum becomes more than a friend to Hermoine, there is the chance that something like this could haoppen. Blinded by first love and the like, Hermione could put too much trust in Krum telling him everything there is to tell about Harry, thus passing on information to the darker side - presuming Krum is a bad boy. ( This bad boy personification of Krum would psychologically fit Hermoine, though. She has already shown by her actions in yelling and Trelawny and storming out of her class and punching Malfoy that she has some pent up negative energy. If Krum is a bad boy type character, he can give her an outlet.) > A powerful, intelligent witch isolated further from; > two very cheesed of friends (however justified), > absent and possibly indifferent parents, "My parents > don't read the Daily Prophet", G.O.F.pg 392, > and the potential that she's been carting around a yew and phoenix > feather wand, as she obviously has the power; could highlight her for > posible subjectation, afterall Malfoy seems keen and Voldemort > himself was half muggle. The flaw in this is that Hermoine is completely muggle born. I think that the Death Eaters/Voldemort would rather see her dead than anything. However, they would keep her alive long enough to get every ounce of information they wanted before killing her - ala Bertha Jorkins. But, I highly doubt they would let her live on because eventually Hermione would figure it all out, I suspect. ( ALthough for Hermione, discovering you have been passing information to the Death Eaters would probably warrant suicide....) > I wo'nt to be wrong because I *love* Hermione so a one word answer > of, "Hermione's wand is willow with a cute lucky rabbit's tail fluffy > core", would be of enormous relief, if it's true. > :::conjures up best deep voice to sound like sean connery::::: I named the dog Hermione It's true. I would hate to see this happen, as well. Hermione is a good portion of the brain power behind the threesome... if they lose her.. well... I would be afraid to see what happens... -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 22:10:26 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:10:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The MoM & Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <004901c2a6d8$85216420$e485f6d1@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <20021218221026.57617.qmail@web14610.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48505 rinceceol wrote: SNIP<> Yes, but it was Voldemort-Imperio-ed-Crouch who hand selected Percey for a "promotion". It seems to me that under normal circumstances someone further up in the hierarchy of Crouch's department would have taken over his affairs. But LV probably wanted someone young, impressionable, and inexperienced, so they would not become suspicious (as I believe a more experienced MoM wizard would), and so LV had Crouch give this young kid a HUGE promotion and put him in charge. <> You are right. The MoM is not an international body. It simply has an International Affairs office (as any national government would). We know tha Bulgaria has its own MoM. SNIP ON HOGWARTS BEING HIDDEN <> I think Hogwarts have protection against Muggle detection, but not against wizard detection. Don't have GoF in front of me, but think of Karkaroff's and DD's exchange at the Yule Ball, Karkaroff hushes Krum up when he gives away geographical details of Durmstang's location, and DD seems opposed to this, asking what is the sense in all the secrecy. ANGELA ~rinceceol --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/8/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ From sgarfio at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 23:01:22 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:01:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: <4d.291960c8.2b323654@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021218230122.97227.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48506 Snuffles said: > Ok. This is something that has been bugging me as well; however we see in > GoF, someone ( Crouch Jr) uses Harry's wand to conjure the Dark Mark using a > spell only the Death Eater's know- "Morsmorde!" Mister Ollivander examines > Harry's wand and uses it, as well. > In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, there is a great deal of wand switching. > My best guess is that it is possible for people to use wands not their own if > the will of mind is strong enough....... > Although, this still leaves the issue of Harry finding his wand at > Ollivander's after blowing things up with other wands.... Movie-tainting alert! In the book, nothing happens when Harry tries the "wrong" wands. In fact, Ollivander snatches each one out of his hand before he has a chance to do anything, and he has no idea what Ollivander is expecting. When Harry buys his first wand, he has had no training whatsoever, and he isn't even attempting any particular spell or incantation. Note that when he first takes hold of "his" wand, he feels a warmth in his fingers, even before he waves it and shoots out the red and gold sparks. I think that in this situation, with an inexperienced wizard, the wands simply go into default mode and either spark or don't depending on their "resonance" with the wizard. No spell is necessary; it's just raw magical potential. Ollivander states that you'll never get "such good results" with another wizard's wand; that doesn't mean that you will get *no* results. If Harry had already had some training and tried to actually do a spell with each wand he tried, he would probably have made something happen. Likewise, for simple spells like Hermione's Alohomora and Ollivander's sparks, and even Crouch's Dark Mark, they are able to use Harry's wand. Nothing could really go wrong with any of these spells; Alohomora will either work or not, sparks aren't all that impressive, and the Dark Mark may be a bit dull or blurry, which wouldn't make it any less scary. I suspect that when you go to buy a replacement wand, by that time you have enough experience that you can determine which wand suits you best, much like a musician can select a new instrument that suits him based on experience with other instruments. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu Dec 19 00:14:37 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:14:37 -0800 Subject: More on wands, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: <20021218230122.97227.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20021218230122.97227.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <146163443174.20021218161437@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48507 Hi, Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 3:01:22 PM, Sherry wrote: > Ollivander states that you'll never get "such good results" with > another > wizard's wand; that doesn't mean that you will get *no* results. If > Harry had > already had some training and tried to actually do a spell with each > wand he > tried, he would probably have made something happen. Definitely! After all, Ron uses somebody else's wand for his whole first year (even if it *is* from a family member). Which brings up a question: if you have two wands, made out of the same kind of wood and with the same type of core, are they interchangeable or are they still somehow individual? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 01:01:10 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 01:01:10 -0000 Subject: More on wands, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: <146163443174.20021218161437@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susanne wrote: > > Which brings up a question: if you have two wands, made out > of the same kind of wood and with the same type of core, are > they interchangeable or are they still somehow individual? > I think i recall Mr Ollivander stating that no two Ollivander wands are alike, so this situation is unlikely to arise in canon. However, there is still a possibility of it happening. The Priori Incantateum effect occurred because the core of both their wands shared the same origin. So I think for the wands to be exactly alike, you would not only need the same wood, length and type of core, but also cores from a common source. Otherwise, they would not be exactly the same, and thus slightly different results would be expected. See ya Roo From dorigen at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 01:02:38 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 01:02:38 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will someone be poisoned? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48509 >I think it's probable. Lucius seems to be quite the collector of >illicit poisons himself, much of which he sold to Borgin & Burkes at >the beginning of CoS because his possession of them, in his own >words, "might make it appear....". Hmmm...I wonder where he acquired >these poisons in the first place? Snape. Which is why, now that he's on Dumbledore's side, he's so important as a potions expert -- so he's around to fix anything the other side does with the potions, poisons, and knowledge he provided when he was a Death Eater. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From abigail_draconi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 01:11:00 2002 From: abigail_draconi at yahoo.com (abigail_draconi ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 01:11:00 -0000 Subject: (OT but IMPORTANT) POSSIBLE VIRUS WARNING Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48510 I realize that this is OT (for which I appologize), but I felt that you should be aware. I think that my hotmail account (to which I had this mailing list sent) has picked up an email virus. When deleting unwanted messages, some of these messsages copied themselves. These copies then refuse to leave my inbox. If/when I send these copies to the trash can (or any other folder), a copy apears in the folder/trash can yet the message in the inbox does not disapear. Am I the only one to whom this is happening? Is it just a hotmail thing? My anti-virus software couldn't find anything when I ran it, and this phenom is more annoying than anything, but I figured that you should know. --Chyna Rose From kristen at sanderson-web.com Thu Dec 19 02:05:40 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:05:40 -0000 Subject: The death in book 5 and..... Hello... I'm Eudaemonia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48511 > wands). I even have this way-out-there theory that Dumbledore can > transfigure into a phoenix as well so if he dies, he'll be reborn > from the ashes. "Order" may be taken as an organized union of people - > - understandable from what was taking action in the ending of Goblet > of Fire -- but it could also be taken as the lifeline order of the > phoenix. :-/ Don't mind me, I'm just a bit taken with the titles > after Chamber of Secrets ;-) > > Cheers, > Eu I LOVE your theory about the "Order of the Phoenix" title. It makes sense to me. The title could even have many meanings. JKR has a tendency to revisit her favorite subjects (like polyjuice potion) and I can't believe she'll let the priori incantatem theory rest forever (do you think that if Harry was holding Fawkes, he could do more powerful magic than with his wand?). However, I'm not sure I believe that Dumbledore will die in book 5. I think his death will be closer to the end of the series. Harry may have come of age, but he's still got a lot to learn. I also wonder who would explain the story at the end of the book if Dumbledore dies. In each of the books so far, Dumbledore has exposed the importance of the lessons in the book at the end. So far in this series, we have learned almost nothing about Harry's parents or heritage. I find it hard to imagine that Dumbledore will die before passing on a lot more information in this department. I agree with a recent article I read (can't remember author) that states that the death may be Molly Weasly. If not her than Hagrid. Kristen (still a major newbie) From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Dec 19 00:11:10 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:11:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's wand and related question. References: <4d.291960c8.2b323654@aol.com> Message-ID: <3E010E9E.CC8762FC@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48513 srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote: > > > I don't much have an answer for this one as much as to say, very good > point. > However, perhaps JKR has not thought that Hermoine's wand is of > particular > consequence? > Except maybe to Hermione. Doesn't seem she ever gets into anything where anyone asks for details about her wand. She's not in any magical contests, she's not had to go buy a new one like Ron did nor does she talk about her wand any. To a personality like hers, perhaps its only a tool and she doesn't think about it like some do. > > Ok. This is something that has been bugging me as well; however we see > in > GoF, someone ( Crouch Jr) uses Harry's wand to conjure the Dark Mark > using a > spell only the Death Eater's know- "Morsmorde!" Mister Ollivander > examines > Harry's wand and uses it, as well. > In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, there is a great deal of wand > switching. > My best guess is that it is possible for people to use wands not their > own if > the will of mind is strong enough....... > Although, this still leaves the issue of Harry finding his wand at > Ollivander's after blowing things up with other wands.... > Please note that when Harry got his wand, he didn't know how to use one at all yet. Maybe if he knew even a simple spell, he might not have blown things up, since he would be 'experienced' in handling a wand. Seems that more experienced wizards or witches don't have problems using other wands. Certainly Ollivander can use any of them, even ones with what he calls 'temperamental' cores, as seen in the Weighing of the Wands. Ollivander's comment that other wands don't work as well as a wizard's own most likely means just that. They don't work 'as well'. They still DO WORK, but maybe it takes a little more control and concentration to use them or the resulting spell might not be as strong, though this would only be apparent with stronger charms or something. ie. Maybe a Cruciatus Curse with someone else's wand is slightly less painful then with the wizard's own? Maybe a transformation spell with a strange wand doesn't come out quite as perfect? May depend also on the power of the wizard as well. Certainly experience with a wand would have something to do with it to. What would happen if Harry had to replace his wand? Would things still blow up? Or in fact, would he just cast simple charms till a wand felt 'right'. Its also obvious that wands can be replaced if broken or lost, as Ron was able to buy a new wand after breaking his. So its not 'one wand/one wizard'. If you can replace a wand, then there might in fact be some wands that 'get along well' with more then one wizard and some 'temperamental' wands that might only work well for one or two people. I think the wands are as individual as people. I also don't think the wands are 'tuned' to the wizard at all, but in fact, some cores or wood types perform better for some wizards. I would guess its more like picking out a violin (musicians will understand this, the rest of you might not), you try a bunch of them till you find one that 'feels' right. In fact, some might find more then one that feels right and have to pick among them and others might have to search a while to find one that is 'right'. However, what happens to all those wands whose owners died? Its quite posible that another person might find an old, used wand to be their 'match'? One wonders about 2nd hand wand shops in Knockturn Alley? (evil grin) > > This was sheer concern and using of her mind. McGonagall agrees with > Hermoine > that in light of Black's escape, Harry's already torrid past with > Voldie, and > the fact that there was NO card or note attached to the parcel, it is > best > that the Firebolt be tested for jinxes, hexes, etc. Granted, I thought > that > it was a little excessive, but then, I had an inkling that Sirius > would not > be the "big bad man". > Well, she had to know Sirius's connection to Harry's past and knew that Azkaban may have totally unhinged him, making him dangerous to anyone, even his own godson. > > This is another good point. It has already been established that > Karkaroff > was in Azkaban as a convicted death eater. Sirius stresses to Harry > that this > is important... Thus you would think that Harry would suspect Krum to > be a > little shady.... Yet, Harry is suspicious of Krum until they discuss > Hermione, and Harry realises that he is in no danger with Krum. Ludo, > however, upon seeing that Krum wants a word with Harry does express > some > concern by asking "Should I wait for you then?"- or something, I don't > have > the book infront of me.... > I think that neither Harry, nor Hermoine have the doubts of the adults > when > Krum is concerned. Krum charms Harry in their conversation right > before Barty > Crouch appears in the woods by telling him what a good flyer he is. > Perhaps > this is a tactic to gain trust... we will hopefully find out in Book > 5. > I think telling him he is a good flyer was more an apology after he found out that Harry didn't in fact have any relationship going with Hermione. Krum read the Rita Skeeter nonsense and got worried that it was true and thought Harry was a rival. When he found out he wasn't, he likely felt foolish and wanted to made amends by complimenting Harry. > > Good point, again, but I am with the group of people that believe > there is no > way anything will happen to Hagrid ( for I will cry and cry...) But, > if Krum > becomes more than a friend to Hermoine, there is the chance that > something > like this could haoppen. Blinded by first love and the like, Hermione > could > put too much trust in Krum telling him everything there is to tell > about > Harry, thus passing on information to the darker side - presuming Krum > is a > bad boy. > > ( This bad boy personification of Krum would psychologically fit > Hermoine, > though. She has already shown by her actions in yelling and Trelawny > and > storming out of her class and punching Malfoy that she has some pent > up > negative energy. If Krum is a bad boy type character, he can give her > an > outlet.) > I thing Krum is a nice guy, but something of a loner due to having been schooled at Durmstrang. He might not have had any interest in the dark arts, but is talented, thus might have spent more time studying then trying to make friends with other students he didn't care much for (budding dark wizards?)? Maybe he saw a soulmate in Hermione. Someone else who buried herself in books because it was hard for her to make friends? Krum's sulkyness might be more 'loneliness'. He isn't interested in people who just want to buddy up to him for being famous and might consider them 'fair weather friends' at best. He might have been looking for REAL friends. Thus Hermione, who is not impressed by fame and Harry, who is famous himself and can relate to Krum. Jazmyn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Wed Dec 18 23:47:53 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:47:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's wand and related question. Message-ID: <1ac.df2309a.2b326329@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48514 In a message dated 18/12/2002 18:04:09 Eastern Standard Time, sgarfio at yahoo.com writes: > Movie-tainting alert Good lord, ::: slaps head:::: ok. Big mistake on my part.. I have been thoroughhly tainted... ;) But I stand by the other points I made on the wand switching in the Shrieking Shack. Good point about musicians.... however, even with that analogy it can be argued that Ollivander's statement "The wand chooses the wizard, remember...." in the Diagon Alley Chapter of PS/SS still holds water. As a musician, I really believe that the instruments I play are somewhat tailoured for me. So, then, the original question is still valid. -Snuffles who is now going through her memory to delete any details of the film so as not to confuse the two ever again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Dec 19 00:23:46 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:23:46 -0600 Subject: Wands... References: <004201c2a5ba$a1d9c9a0$59edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <3E011192.7405C5E@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48515 You ever wonder if perhaps much of Neville's troubles might stem from not getting along with his wand? ie. Maybe he is trying to use a wand that was given as a gift, he inherited or otherwise, he didn't pick it out (or it didn't pick him)? Might turn out someday that he really does have the ability, but just has the wrong wand? Could see maybe Ollivander bumping into him one day while he has his wand out and remarking "Oh dear. That wand isn't suited to you at all! Thats the one I sold to your Great Aunt." Jazmyn From debmclain at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 02:41:12 2002 From: debmclain at yahoo.com (Debbie McLain ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:41:12 -0000 Subject: The death in book 5 and..... Hello... I'm Eudaemonia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48516 eudaemonia_splinched wrote: > >I even have this way-out-there theory that Dumbledore can > > transfigure into a phoenix as well so if he dies, he'll be reborn > > from the ashes. "Order" may be taken as an organized union of > people - > > - understandable from what was taking action in the ending of > Goblet > > of Fire -- but it could also be taken as the lifeline order of the phoenix Kristen wrote: > I LOVE your theory about the "Order of the Phoenix" title. > However, I'm not sure I believe that Dumbledore will die in book 5. > I think his death will be closer to the end of the series. Harry may > have come of age, but he's still got a lot to learn. I also wonder > who would explain the story at the end of the book if Dumbledore > dies. In each of the books so far, Dumbledore has exposed the > importance of the lessons in the book at the end. So far in this > series, we have learned almost nothing about Harry's parents or > heritage. I find it hard to imagine that Dumbledore will die before > passing on a lot more information in this department. > > I agree with a recent article I read (can't remember author) that > states that the death may be Molly Weasly. If not her than Hagrid. Me: I, too, like Eu's thought of Order of the Phoenix means. That's a new one I hadn't heard yet. As for the death, Kristen, I also read about it possibly being Molly Weasley (I read it on MuggleNet, I think). HPforGUps had a long thread not that long ago about who's death it could be. It was very interesting, but came down to probably being Hagrid. However, the new "Molly" theory sounds pretty valid to me too. I think Dumbledore will live until the last book. Yes, I agree Harry has too much still to learn and I don't think Hagrid or McGonagall can fit the role of mentor for him if DD were to die in book 5. Hmmmm....."Order of the Phoenix" - the lifeline order of the phoenix. Interesting....but I still like the thought it's the "old crowd's" logo. -Debbie From Lynx412 at aol.com Thu Dec 19 03:20:50 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:20:50 EST Subject: More on wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48517 > Sherry wrote: > > > Ollivander states that you'll never get "such good results" with another > wizard's wand; that doesn't mean that you will get *no* results. If Harry > had already had some training and tried to actually do a spell with each > wand he tried, he would probably have made something happen. > siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > Definitely! > > After all, Ron uses somebody else's wand for his whole first > year (even if it *is* from a family member). > And, in GoF, Ollivander himself uses each champion's wand when he tests them, even the two he hasn't made. So, it seems that wizards can use other wands, even those tied to another wizard, just not as successfully as the original owners. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nate_andersen at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 03:48:35 2002 From: nate_andersen at hotmail.com (Nathan Andersen) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:48:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and Snape's Betrayal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48518 I'm new to the group so sorry if this has been mentioned before. In the Sorcerers stone Voldemort rides around in Quirell's body so shouldn't Voldemort know about Snape's betrayal since Snape not only threatened Quirell but even saved Harry's life. I might be missing something but it would seem to me that Voldemort should know about Snape's betrayal making Snape useless as a spy at the end of GoF. Nate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Dec 19 04:55:50 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 04:55:50 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: No OT Posting Please Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48519 Greetings from the Magical Moderator Team. Just a quick reminder that we do not allow OT posts on this list. We have an entire HPFGU-OTChatter list for off-topic posts. It's a fun and friendly place where people enjoy talking about all sorts of things, and it can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter Also, while we do appreciate that the threat of computer viruses can be very alarming and that the natural instinct is to try to alert others to the possibility that a new one is going around, nonetheless if you have concerns about a possible virus, then please direct it by email to the Moderator Team at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com We will investigate the problem and advise, and if there is a cause for alarm for the list as a whole, we will be sure to announce it promptly. Thanks so much! --Elkins, for the Moderator Team From debmclain at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 02:54:54 2002 From: debmclain at yahoo.com (Debbie McLain ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:54:54 -0000 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48520 "Steve " wrote: > > BBOY_MN: Something big is up with Percy too, not sure what, but > > something really big. I know people are > > going to die, I really hope it's not Percy. I want Percy to see that > > his ambition, perfection, and absolute adherence to the rules are > > hurting him. Hurting him both professionally, personally, and > > emotionally. Percy needs to take a lesson from Hermione and lighten up. "Anne " wrote: > Percy has always struck me as something of an anomaly in the Weasley > family. He just seems so insanely ambitious and perfectionistic > compared to everyone else in the family...The whole business of him > covering for and sucking up to Barty Crouch Sr. in GoF really > disturbed me. I hope he doesn't side with Cornelius Fudge in Book 5; > I think that would cause a significant rift between Percy and the > rest of his family - and possibly many of his Hogwarts friends as > well. Me: Anne - isn't there canon from JK saying that there will be a rift in the Weasley family because of Percy siding with Fudge? Maybe I have read too many posts and getting confused, but I do remember something somewhere of JK saying something similar (or we all assumed this is what she meant). Steve - I totally agree: "Percy needs to take a lesson from Hermione and lighten up." I think he will end up helping the DE's by accident, sort of like Ludo Bagman. Although, I also have a theory Ron will help out Voldy by giving out some info on Harry - not fully sure if it will be by accident or for money, but something will definitely happen. -Debbie From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 05:34:28 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 05:34:28 -0000 Subject: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: <1ac.df2309a.2b326329@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48521 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > In a message dated 18/12/2002 18:04:09 Eastern Standard Time, > sgarfio at y... writes: > > > > Movie-tainting alert > > Good lord, ::: slaps head:::: ok. Big mistake on my part.. I have > been thoroughhly tainted... ;) > > But I stand by the other points I made on the wand switching in the > Shrieking Shack. Good point about musicians.... however, even with > that analogy it can be argued that Ollivander's statement "The wand > chooses the wizard, remember...." in the Diagon Alley Chapter of > PS/SS still holds water. > > As a musician, I really believe that the instruments I play are > somewhat tailoured for me. > > So, then, the original question is still valid. > > -Snuffles bboy_mn: I made my gave my views on the 'wand choses the wizard' a few weeks back. I don't want to bore people by saying it all over again. So here is a link to post# 47614. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/47614 I believe that the wizard and the wand have a mutual harmony or resonance, but I've also used the musician and instrument analogy to explain the same principle. If we substitue violin for wand, we could say a violin player will never have such good results with another violin as he will with his own. But that by no means is an indication that he can't play another violin with great musical magic. Just a few thoughts and an old post. bboy_mn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 19 05:42:09 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:42:09 EST Subject: Theory on why harry had to go home (end book 4) Message-ID: <169.18cb5195.2b32b631@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48522 > Sixhoursahead: > > > > > > > > > > Go Back Home To The Dursley's? > > > > > I wanted to revist this as I just reread GoF and found something I had not remembered. When Volemort speaks to the Death Eaters he explains that Dumbledore "invoked an ancient magic" to protect Harry at the Durlseys to which he also notes "Not even I can touch him there." Voldemort also explains earlier on that he had not anticipated the ancient magic which protected Harry when his mother sacrificed his life to save him, Harry.... So, it would seem Voldemort isn't up to par in his ancient magic. THIS would explain why Dumbledore insists Harry return to Privet drive first before travelling on to the Burrow-- i.e. Dumbledore needs time to Voldemort-proof the Burrow. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaityf at jorsm.com Thu Dec 19 05:57:20 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:57:20 -0600 Subject: Clues from TMTMNBN Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021218232933.031bfe50@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48523 I saw TMTMNBN yesterday for the 4th or 5th time and noticed something that I wondered if anyone else noticed. I also wondered whether anyone thought it had any significance. When Harry is talking to Tom Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets, I noticed that Riddle's tie seemed quite different from Harry's. Of course, I didn't expect it to be the same colors since I didn't expect him to be a Gryffindor. However, the stripes were different and I couldn't quite make out the colors. They definitely weren't red or yellow, but I couldn't tell if they were green or blue. I noticed because I kept staring at Riddle's outfit looking for some clues about him. All I could see was the Hogwarts crest and then the Prefect badge. Then yesterday I noticed the stripes on the tie. Now this may be nothing, but then I wondered why the tie wasn't more clearly a Slytherin tie. Sure, styles could have changed in 50 years, but still, I didn't think the colors were that clear either. While we all believe Riddle is/was the heir of Slytherin, does anyone thing it's possible that he wasn't in Slytherin? Did anyone else notice Riddle's tie? Also in TMTMNBN, in Florish and Blotts, Lucius says to Arthur, "I'll see you at work." In all the times I've read the books, I've never seen any indication that Lucius has a job let alone a job at the MOM. Did I miss something somewhere in one of the books? Does anyone think there is some reason this was put in the movie? I didn't see why it was needed at all. Why put it in there? I don't want to discuss the movie; I want to know if what appeared in the movie might signify anything in the current books or in the books to come. Carol Bainbridge (kaityf at jorsm.com) http://www.lcag.org From duranta at pop.belmont.edu Thu Dec 19 06:42:48 2002 From: duranta at pop.belmont.edu (durant_a2002 ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:42:48 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48525 Dumbledore takes so many precautions to protect the Sorcerer's Stone. He sends Hagrid to get Fluffy to guard the trap door, he stations Devil's Snare underneath, Enchants a room full of flying keys, and also bewitches a chess board. Yet, for the majority of the book, the Mirror of Erised, which holds the Sorcerer's Stone within, is kept in an empty spare classroom where a first year student is able to stumble upon it one night. I always found this a little strange. If anyone else has any thoughts on the subject I would be glad to hear them. Andrew From splinched at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 06:51:53 2002 From: splinched at hotmail.com (eudaemonia_splinched ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:51:53 -0000 Subject: Thoughts and Predictions-discuss (a bit long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48526 --- Anne said:" > ... > > I think that would cause a significant rift between Percy and the > rest of his family - and possibly many of his Hogwarts friends as > well. > > Anne U > (hoping we don't discover Evil!Percy down the road) I'm hoping that if that does happen it's because a certain rat that was previously his had been whispering evil things into his sleep pretending to be his subconscious all those years... :( Eu From splinched at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 07:01:07 2002 From: splinched at hotmail.com (eudaemonia_splinched ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 07:01:07 -0000 Subject: The death in book 5 and..... Hello... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48527 > Kristen wrote: > > I LOVE your theory about the "Order of the Phoenix" title. > > However, I'm not sure I believe that Dumbledore will die in book > 5.... > > > > I agree with a recent article I read (can't remember author) that > > states that the death may be Molly Weasly. If not her > > than Hagrid. > > Debbie wrote: > > I, too, like Eu's thought of Order of the Phoenix means. That's > a new one I hadn't heard yet. > :D I'm glad you both like my title theory. Actually, I'm also somewhat leaning toward Hagrid as the possible victim. It hasn't been good for him throughout the books: in 1, he unintentionally traded Fluffy's secret for a dragon egg; in 2, he was sent to Azkaban; in 3, he got into trouble with Buckbeak; in 4, he was exposed as being a half-giant. The poor guy's had it rough. :( Eu From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Thu Dec 19 09:33:12 2002 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:33:12 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Movie-related discussion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48528 Hello everyone-- We're glad to see that people are interested in analyzing the movies, and how the movies affect, augment, or detract from canon, however we must ask that these discussions take place on the Movie list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ Even if you are using information or cues from the movie, or anything related to the movie, such as comments from the actors, writer or director, the length of the actors' contracts, your understanding of JKR's involvement or lack thereof in the final film product, or anything similar to *make a point about canon or speculate on future canon*, we insist that these discussions do not happen on this list. The Movie list was created specifically for this type of discussion, so please carry on with these threads there. Thanks for your cooperation, Kelley, for the Mods From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 19 08:55:41 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:55:41 EST Subject: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? Message-ID: <7b.4fdf7c9.2b32e38d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48529 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans wrote: > > I am a Sirius-supporter to the end. I'm glad that he was not punished for the prank, but I do not understand WHY he got away with it? Maybe he didn't. Me: I just thought of this.... what if the actuality of what happened was not brought to Dumbledore's attention until *after* everyone had graduated. Dumbledore says that he knew James during his time at Hogwarts and after.. ( also I assume he knew all of the Marauders during these times) Snape, I think, since uninjured by the prank, really, may have not gone straight to Dumbledore with the information... for a number of reasons.. A) Which is more powerful- To have something to hold over someone (s)'s head or B) To quickly use what you know to get the person(s) in trouble... I think Severus Snape was calculated with the information. He may have held it from Dumbledore in case he ever needed the upper hand in a situation. and then there is another theory I have. What if Snape was already among the followers of Voldemort. By all accounts Tom Riddle was in Hagrid's class which would have been many many years before Severus and the Marauders. Voldemort killed his father as a teenager ( First Chapter GoF), so who is to say that Severus or at least his family, wasn't already following Voldemort. That little fact establishes that wizards can be just awful at a very young age. But, if it were just his family at this point..... There may have been some.... prejudices ...from the faculty and from the Marauders towards him--- or even if he openly stated agreement with the principles of the Dark Side. this would be much like how Draco Malfoy is looked upon by the faculty in the HP books. I.E. the majourity of the faculty would have sided with the Marauders and NOT Severus Snape. Or, there is always the theory that Severus was a large nosed, greasy haired, slimeball of an ugly git ( who I personally think is pretty darn attractive ;) )as a child and no one liked him at all so know one listened. Still "registering astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a professor", Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 08:05:23 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:05:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Other Wizards'Wands (WAS: Hermione's wand and related question. In-Reply-To: <4d.291960c8.2b323654@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021219080523.9653.qmail@web14606.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48530 renitentraven at h... wrote: > 2. Despite Ollivander's assertion, "You'd never get such good results > with another Wizard's wand",(P.S.,64), first year Hermione was able > to flawlessly perform the alohomora charm with Harry's wand. and srsiriusblack at a... replied: <> I do not think that Ollivander's statement in any way implies that a wizard will be unable to use any but his own. Just that the results will not be a good. Kind of like a baseball player using someone else's mitt. So I do not think that the fact that Hermione used Harry's wand successfully for a simple charm, tells us anything significant about Hermione (especially not whether she is evil, or will turn evil, unwittingly work for evil, etc.) I do think that, though, Hermione being the betrayer needs to be looked at, because no one wants to believe it, it doesn't seem possible, and that is for one reason. Every other time we consider a close friend of Harry's turning or betraying him, we usually have to follow it with: they wouldn't do it on purpose, they might just unwittingly be led astray, etc. etc. And we cannot believe that about Hermione, she is too sharp, too smart, too with it. If Hermione betrays Harry, she will KNOW what she is doing. ANGELA From kristen at sanderson-web.com Thu Dec 19 11:27:12 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:27:12 -0000 Subject: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? In-Reply-To: <7b.4fdf7c9.2b32e38d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48531 > Or, there is always the theory that Severus was a large nosed, > greasy haired, slimeball of an ugly git ( who I personally think is > pretty darn attractive ;) )as a child and no one liked him at all so > know one listened. > > Still "registering astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a > professor", > Snuffles > > I would say that at least one person must have listened to him at some point. If Dumbledore did not help him as a child in some way, shape or form, than Snape never would have gone to him as an adult. Sirius states (GOF) that Snape knew in his first year more curses than a seventh year and that he followed them around trying to get them expelled. Maybe it was a case of crying wolf (or should I say werewolf? :) too many times. If Snape was really spending his time trying to get the Marauders expelled, then how could Dumbledore tell that this particular prank was worse than others? Kristen From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 19 12:27:37 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:27:37 -0000 Subject: So Why didn't Dumbledore Punish Sirius? In-Reply-To: <7b.4fdf7c9.2b32e38d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > Me: > I just thought of this.... what if the actuality of what happened was > not brought to Dumbledore's attention until *after* everyone had > graduated. Dumbledore says that he knew James during his time at > Hogwarts and after.. ( also I assume he knew all of the Marauders > during these times) > > Snape, I think, since uninjured by the prank, really, may have not > gone straight to Dumbledore with the information... for a number of > reasons.. > A) Which is more powerful- To have something to hold over someone > (s)'s head > or > B) To quickly use what you know to get the person(s) in trouble... I don't think that works. Lupin specifically says that Snape was forbidden by Dumbledore to tell anybody about the Prank (PoA, US Paperback, pg 357), and after Snape was out of school, Dumbledore would not have been in a position to tell him what to do. Even Lupin's phrasing: "He was forbidden by Dumbledore to tell anybody, but from that time on he knew what I was" implies that he was forbidden at the time it happened. Also, once Remus himself was out of school, the information would lose its power -- Remus would no longer have to worry about getting kicked out of school if everyone learned he's a werewolf. I suppose Snape could've tried to get Remus punished for the "attack," but it would be his word against the Marauders, with no physical evidence, and no satisfactory answer to the obvious question of "So why didn't you complain at the time?" Right after the prank, Snape could've at least presented any injuries he had as evidence. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Emza at lineone.net Thu Dec 19 11:07:54 2002 From: Emza at lineone.net (Emza at lineone.net) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:07:54 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3DEB4B8000017A59@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48533 Pickle Jimmy wrote: >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why >could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? >I know that when Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he had just >escaped Aunt Marge - but surely the protection isn't just over >Privett Drive or he'd be vunerable while at school (muggle not >hogwarts). > Equally, how did Dobby find Harry? Even without the ancient magical protection, how on earth did he know where Harry was? We know Ron and the other Weasley's know (they write to him by Muggle post, they drive magical cars there), but by what route could Dobby possibly have found out Harry's address? Hope I've done everything right. It's my first post and I'm sitting somewhere without the books. Emma From heidit at netbox.com Thu Dec 19 13:57:15 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:57:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: <3DEB4B8000017A59@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <01b401c2a766$899d37c0$0301a8c0@Frodo> No: HPFGUIDX 48534 > > Pickle Jimmy wrote: > > >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > >could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > >I know that when Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he > had just > >escaped Aunt Marge - but surely the protection isn't just over > >Privett Drive or he'd be vunerable while at school (muggle not > >hogwarts). > > And Emma, in her first post, asked a sensible question: > Equally, how did Dobby find Harry? Even without the ancient > magical protection, > how on earth did he know where Harry was? We know Ron and the > other Weasley's > know (they write to him by Muggle post, they drive magical > cars there), > but by what route could Dobby possibly have found out Harry's address? > There are a variety of possible answers to these questions. It's possible that the ancient magic protecting Harry protects him only from wizards or witches who intend to do him harm (which would make the protection useless at keeping the house elves awak (or lethifolds, for that matter, but that's for another set of speculative posts). It's also possible that the ancient magic protects him against anything magical that wants to harm him, which would give space for Dudley to use him as a punching bag (but would give credence to those who say Pentunia's a squib, as the one time we see her try to hurt Harry, he ducks the soapy pan). I can't see how the ancient magic protects him from anyone who wants to hurt him, though, as Dudley seems to do a bit of that in canon, so it seems like it should be something in between total protection and something limited. However, that doesn't mean that Privet Drive is unplottable. There have been a number of theories here, and elsewhere in the fandom (like in fanfics) which suggest that Sirius knew where Lily's sister lived, perhaps related to events surrounding James and Lily's wedding, perhaps because he offered to send out birth announcements when Harry was born, a number of reasons. Or he just knew the name Dursley and that they lived in Surrey (again from Lily) and looked in a phone book when he escaped from Azkaban. He knew, from Hagrid, that Harry was being taken there, so it was a good shot that in August, he'd still be there. Dobby, likewise, may've simply found out Harry's location via Lucius. A governor of Hogwarts, which Lucius was that year, would likely have that information on hand, or be able to get access to it very easily. Or he could've obtained it from the Ministry. Of course, it's also entirely possible that Draco actually knew about Lucius' plans and sent Dobby himself, but forbade Dobby from telling Harry. Narcissa may've sent Dobby as well - we really don't know at this point in canon. I admit, it's farfetched, but not totallly canon-barred. heidi From Lynx412 at aol.com Thu Dec 19 14:17:24 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:17:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48535 In a message dated 12/19/02 2:30:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, duranta at pop.belmont.edu writes: > Yet, for the majority of the book, the Mirror of Erised, which holds the > Sorcerer's Stone within, is kept in an empty spare classroom where a first > year student is > able to stumble upon it one night. It was my impression that the Stone wasn't placed in the Mirror until after DD moved it once Harry had found it. This would especially fit if, in fact, DD was setting up a situation for Harry to confront Quirrel!Mort. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From englishatjodie at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 14:22:29 2002 From: englishatjodie at hotmail.com (samnjodie ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:22:29 -0000 Subject: Ship: H/H vs. R/H Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48536 I'm new and I've just read over the summary of the debate i.e. who will end up with whom. Frankly, I think it's obvious who Harry will end up with, or at least who he wants to end up with (Cho). In fact, I don't think that there is, or will be, any sexual attraction between Harry and Hermione at all - at least not beyond what is inevitable. I've had (and I'm sure a fair number of you have too) several close friendships with members of the opposite sex and while there are naturally going to be phases of "Oh my god, am I attracted to him/her? Am I? Oh GOD!!...", they pass. What Hermione and Harry have (or rather, what their relationship will probably develop into, in my opinion) is a relationship not dissimilar to that between Mulder and Scully (for those of you who followed the X-Files); A sexual relationship is only in question because one happens to be female, the other happens to be male, and biology dictates that when two people of opposite sexes spend a significant amount of time together (unless one or both is a homosexual), their minds are bound to consider it, as are their hearts. I think, though, that the two of them are more like a brother and a sister to one another then they are like a couple. They are too comfortable with one another, and with their feelings for one another. It could be argued that their lack of insecurity is a point towards a relationship them, but anyone posing that argument would be forgetting what it's like to be a teenager. By the end of the goblet of fire they are each just finishing puberty. This is when Harry is going to start suffering for his abusive up bringing (all of that sadness and isolation would, and will, come back to him now) - and Hermione, as well brought up as she may have been, is still young and is going to be as scared by her own feelings as every teenager has ever been. If they are attracted to each other, even in the smallest way, they are not going to just jump in each others arms and unabashedly profess how much they care about one another. They would be afraid of scaring the other away. They would each pretend that they barely cared for one another at all. Just like Ron and Hermione do; though while they pretend, they are not doing it very well. Why do you care (Ron) if someone you don't care about is going out with someone else? And why, all of a sudden, is Ron so passionately anti-every other champion but Harry? If he were really so "We should NOT fraternize with the other champions!" then he would have, at least, considered this before he tried to ask Fleur Delacour to the ball. He would, at least, have discussed it as a possible reason why he shouldn't go with her. And why do you care (Hermione) if someone you don't care about has chosen you only after seeming to prefer several other people first? If she doesn't want Ron to be (or doesn't care if he is) attracted to other girls, then why is she so angry and hurt by it when, apparently, he is? Thanks for listening. Jodie :) From rbroeker at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 15:51:44 2002 From: rbroeker at hotmail.com (beccafran ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:51:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: <01b401c2a766$899d37c0$0301a8c0@Frodo> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48537 > > Pickle Jimmy wrote: > > > > >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > > >could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > > >I know that when Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he > > had just > > >escaped Aunt Marge - but surely the protection isn't just over > > >Privett Drive or he'd be vunerable while at school (muggle not > > >hogwarts). > > > > And Emma, in her first post, asked a sensible question: > > Equally, how did Dobby find Harry? Even without the ancient > > magical protection, > > how on earth did he know where Harry was? We know Ron and the > > other Weasley's > > know (they write to him by Muggle post, they drive magical > > cars there), > > but by what route could Dobby possibly have found out Harry's address? > > "heiditandy" wrote: > There are a variety of possible answers to these questions. > > It's possible that the ancient magic protecting Harry protects him only from wizards or witches who intend to do him harm (which would make the protection useless at keeping the house elves awak > I can't see how the ancient magic protects him from anyone who wants to > hurt him, though, as Dudley seems to do a bit of that in canon, so it seems like it should be something in between total protection and > something limited. Here's my thought on this (my first on this board!): a) I think the protection is tied to the Dursleys, not to the location (Privet Drive). Dumbledore sends Harry to live with them because they're his only relatives, even though they're Muggles and hate magic. Also, I don't have my book with me, but doesn't Voldemort state that he can't touch Harry "when he's with his relations"? b) I think Heidi must be right about the protection being limited either to Voldemort specifically or just to "witches and wizards" since Sirius!Dog (animal form), Dobby (house elf), and Dudley (Muggle) all manage to get to Harry while he's there. Another question on this: Are Sirius or Dobby actually intending harm to Harry when they go to Privet Drive? Could the spell be limited to only restrict those with evil intent? c) I don't think there could be a restriction on anyone finding out where Harry is. After all, Errol finds him, and he's so decrepit he can barely fly. As far as Dobby finding him, "house elves have their own powerful brand of magic..." could that be it? BeccaFran *excited to be joining the discussion* From anakinbester at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 16:04:54 2002 From: anakinbester at hotmail.com (anakinbester ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:04:54 -0000 Subject: Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48538 > I don't think that there is, or will be, any sexual attraction > between Harry and Hermione at all - at least not beyond what is > inevitable. I would certainly agree with you. Based on my reading of the canon, I find little indication that Hermione and/or Harry have developed any kind of feelings beyond friendship. Of course, they still have three more years to go and a lot can change in three years. About the inevitable, I agree there, that there might be some kind of crush or something (speaking from experience in real life =P) but I suspected it won't be lasting or really that influential at all. >What Hermione and Harry > have (or rather, what their relationship will probably develop into, > in my opinion) is a relationship not dissimilar to that between > Mulder and Scully (for those of you who followed the X-Files); Actually, I like that analogy if applied only tot he first several seasons. I think that kind of working, respectful, caring relationship is exactly what I see between Harry and Hermione. > > I think, though, that the two of them are more like a brother and a > sister to one another then they are like a couple. This point I will disagree with. I don't think there closeness is any kind of deterrent. Then again I don't think Ron and Harry's closeness is any kind of deterrent of a Harry/Ron relationship, so you can take me opinion with a grain of salt =P I've always thought "Well they're like brother and sister" was a goofy argument, because to me, that's the kind of trusting loving relationship between two no related people that is most likely to develop into romance. Unless it's a relationship like the one between my own brother and sister *L* I will be very interested to see how JKR handle teenagers. To many that's one of the hardest age groups to write (And I'm only 21!) simply because real life teenagers can be neurotic (for lack of a better word) tot he point of seeming unrealistic if you write them as the really are. Therefore, it's hard to find a balance. Also, I suspect Harry at least is going to be a most unusual teenager. That said, I rather hope there's a lot of attention placed on Harry and Ron. I do think Hermione and Ron will at least become interested in each other, and I hope that doens't shift things away from Harry and Ron, because I do like that relationship (even on a non slash level ^^) Of course, it might be important to the plot to have Harry feeling isolated from his two closest friends. That's be sad! Harry certainly does not deserve to feel anymore alone. Then again it's said if we all got what we deserved in life, it would be a horrible thing ^_^ My final note on Ron, which I'm including here because I think it already was discussed but I never said anything on it. I do not believe Ron will _ever- willingly become evil no matter how insecure or how fifth wheeled he's feeling. I've seen the comparisons made between his reasons for betrayal and Peter's reasons, but at this point, there is not a lot of canon evidence for Peter's reasons. Everything sand in Canon has come from a character other than Peter who was not happy with Peter at the time. (Though I think Voldemort' "Cowardice accusation was a lot more on mark than Sirius's "Desire for power accusation") Anyway, I just don't see Ron having the combination of flaws that Peter had, nor the combination of circumstances that would have lead Peter to do what he did. Ron is braver, and Ron showed at age 11 (!) that he'd die for Harry. (the chess match. He couldn't have known he wouldn't die) This however scares the beejessus outta me! " 'Yeah I know,' said Ron, who was skipping on every alternative step. He had much more difficulty with the [imperio] curse than Harry though Moody had assured him the effects would wear off by lunch time." -GoF USA version pg 253 I'm sure this got mentioned before, but yeah, this has little red flags written all over it, because it was mentioned the Harry can resist it, and that was important, so I can't imagine it not being important that Ron is so unable to fight it that he still as problems even after the curse is off. *Shudders* that to me doe not bode well. That just screams foreshadowing like nothing else has to me. -Ani PS: *L* obviously I've decided to try and be an active list member again . . let's see how long that lasts ^^;; From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 16:27:15 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:27:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48539 Pickle Jimmy posed these excellent questions: > If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? I know that when > Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he had just escaped Aunt > Marge - but surely the protection isn't just over Privett Drive or > he'd be vunerable while at school (muggle not hogwarts). Now me: In Ch. 33 of GoF, Voldemort tells Harry and the DEs: "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there." So, if Voldemort is to be believed (I know MD folks think he's not, but I happen to think he is, at least during the graveyard speech), the "ancient magic" works when Harry is under the "care" of the Dursleys. However, note that Voldemort doesn't say "as long as he is living at Privet Dr."; he says "as long as he is in his relations' care." I think that "care" extends beyond Privet Dr. - I interpret this as applying anytime Harry is under the guardianship of the Dursleys. If this interpretation is correct, it would explain why Harry was protected when he went to muggle school, why Harry was protected when he returned to the Dursleys on the train by himself after going to Diagon Alley for the first time with Hagrid, and why Harry was protected when he was at King's Cross station trying to find Platform 9 and 3/4 for the first time. Pickle Jimmy again: > And, why not extend this ancient magic to include Black (if it was > specific to Voldemort), and/or why not extend it to include > Hogwarts as well as Privett Drive - rather than use dementors? > And, if it only protects Harry against those that mean him harm, > use it on Hogwarts and if Black does get in it is obvious he isn't > a threat to Harry. Me again: I don't think the "ancient magic" is specific to Voldemort - note how Voldemort says "Not even I can touch him there." IMO, Sirius was able to get close to Harry in Magnolia Crescent because he wasn't a threat to Harry (same goes for Dobby showing up in Harry's bedroom). I also think the "ancient magic" is not required at Hogwarts because Dumbledore provides the protection at Hogwarts. As Voldemort says, "...then, of course, there was the Quidditch World Cup...I thought his protection might be weaker there, away from his relations and Dumbledore...And then, the boy would return to Hogwarts, where he is under the crooked nose of that Muggle-loving fool from morning until night" (Ch. 33 of GoF). Even Hermione realizes this in PS/SS: "Harry, everyone says Dumbledore's the only one You-Know-Who was ever afraid of. With Dumbledore around, You-Know-Who won't touch you" (Ch. 15). As to why the Dementors were stationed at Hogwarts: I think they were put there to catch Sirius, not to protect Harry. Dumbledore even says that he doesn't want them there. And as to why the "ancient magic" only works when Harry is in the Dursley's care, in an October 2000 Barnes and Noble chat JKR was asked: Q: "Does Harry know that he is protected as long as he lives with his family?" JKR: "He sort of knows now, but he won't know the whole truth about that for a little while." see: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/text.htm So there's more to this than we have been told to date! But here's my theory: In the legend of "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 St. Godric where the stag is, "but he would not be the betrayer of his guest." (quotes from: http://users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/0521.htm) IMO, the "well-nigh impenetrable brushwood of thorns and briars" in the legend of St. Godric and the Hunted Stag parallels the privet hedge, which protects Harry from Voldemort (and other evil beings) when he is with the Dursleys. I think the protection is "ancient" because it is derived, in whole or in part, from *Godric* Gryffindor, and I think this is yet another clue that supports the "Harry as Heir of Gryffindor" theory. ~Phyllis From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 16:29:02 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:29:02 -0000 Subject: Almost Like Having Some Lunch (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48540 You might want to set that soda can and power bar aside before you read this .. Almost Like Having Some Lunch To the tune of Almost Like Being in Love, from Brigadoon Dedicated to Eloise Here a MIDI at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/brigadoon.html THE SCENE: A Hogwarts Dungeon where a ghostly soiree is being held. The Four House Ghosts celebrate the meal that is about to be served. FAT FRIAR: When you're a ghost you lack the power To hold a lavish banquet where we'd solid food devour But there's a way we can contrive To make it seem we're still alive THE GRAY LADY When we get an entr?e in a state of decay Why, it's almost like having some lunch! NEARLY HEADLESS NICK When it exudes a stench that would make your teeth clench Why, it's almost like having some lunch! BLOODY BARON: All us spirits can then carry on if you serve up some rank carrion ALL And with the mildew and mold we don't feel all that old If the food is right rotten, then we've not quite forgotten It's almost like having some lunch NEARLY HEADLESS NICK We just can't stay morose THE GRAY LADY: If it's putrid and gross, It is... almost like having some lunch FAT FRIAR: For our fellowship grows as the snacks decompose BLOODY BARON: It is... almost like having some lunch NEARLY HEADLESS NICK: All my senses reel as if drunk THE GRAY LADY: By a scent that resembles a skunk! ALL: And when the meal starts to spoil we feel as if we're royal BLOODY BARON: Nothing's better, we're thinking FAT FRIAR: Than that corrosive stinking, ALL: It's almost like having some lunch! (The Four House Ghosts and their guests dig in) - CMC (who has decided to skip lunch today) HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From anakinbester at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 16:29:33 2002 From: anakinbester at hotmail.com (anakinbester ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:29:33 -0000 Subject: Of Rats and Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48541 Ok, all of these thoughts cam to me after a tried to bathe my own rat, Peter (he fell into charcoal, bad me for leaving it where he could get to it) Anyway, I was introduced to just how very painful it can be to attempt to hold onto a rat that wants desperately to get away. And this was a rat who was not frightened to the point of biting. (thankfully, I've bee bitten once only, hurt like heck!) Being an obsessed fan, I immediately thought of Ron in the shrieking shack trying to hold onto Scabbers. Suddenly that scene does not seem overly realistic to me. It seems to me that if Peter had really wanted to get away, he could have. I honestly don't know how Ron could hold onto a biting, struggling rat for the whole shrieking shack thing. So two thoughts then presented themselves to me. A: Peter wasn't not 100% sure he _wanted_ to be dropped tot he floor in front of Sirius. That makes since in a way, because now Sirius could kill him without hurting Ron. However, Scabbers can also out run Crookshanks apparently. I would think he could out run Sirius, especially given that Sirius would first need to transform, which give Peter a good head start to lodge himself under something heavy and small. Also, that would have cause Sirius to act less then rational, which might have prompted the others to try and attack him, if it happened after Lupin gave them there wands back. Of course that's all assuming Peter's got a good deal of intellect left to reason all this out. If he's going purely on rat instinct, he's trying to get away and not considering floor=Sirius bait. B: Peter didn't want to hurt Ron as badly as he could have. That I find a bit more reasonable, because I think Peter could have hurt Ron enough to get Ron to let go, but he'd really have had to injure the boy. Then I must wonder, how did Peter feel about Ron. Because of the seen with Goyle, I'd always assumed he was a bit protective of the boy. I know many people attribute that to either just, hatred of Goyle, protection of the Candy, or idiot rat behavior. Well let me say this, that was not pet rat behavior at all. That was abnormal, especially considering the rest of Scabber's behavior. To me, I always thought he was protecting on from what he perceived to be a threat. I have no doubt he recognized the name Goyle. Now whether he realized it was the son, or mistook him for the father I don't know. But I'd always seen that as Peter protecting Ron. *Shrugs* Anyway, so maybe he did not want to hurt Ron as badly as he needed to in order to make the boy let him go. It is possible =P We know from GoF he still seems to have a conscience, he just manages to ignore it ^^;;; Another thing though that has bugged me. Why does everyone, especially Ron, pick Scabbers up by his tail! That's something I knew before I even owned a rat! you do _not_ pick them up by their tails. EVER! Except in the direst of emergencies. I can't imagine that JKR did not know this, though maybe she didn't. If she did know that, though, it's an interesting point on Ron's character that he does abuse Scabbers like this. (I'm sure it's not meant to be mean, I'm not saying this) Ron, as much as I love him, does seem to not take overly good care of what belongs to him, nor does he seem to appreciate what he has. I'm thinking specifically of Pig here. He was thrilled to get the bird at the end of PoA. But by GoF, all he does is complain about Pig, similar to how he complained about Scabbers. And Scabbers was jus being a male rat. All they do is sleep during the day! (I have two that's what fuzzy butts are doing as I type. Dozing and occasionally looking at me in hopes I'll give them chocolate or Reese's Pieces ^^) Umm so yes, these were just my random jumbled thoughts on Ron and Scabbers. Thank you for listening! -Ani From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 16:55:13 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:55:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [filk] Peeves the Poltergeist Message-ID: <20021219165513.14194.qmail@web40305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48542 PEEVES THE POLTERGEIST to the tune of "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" HARRY: Peeves the Poltergeist was filling-in Dirty lyrics into Christmas songs. The armor suits forgot All the words, and Peeves had thought He?d add some phrases nasty that would Makes one?s face all hot! Peeves the Poltergeist was chuckling Since he did embarrass everyone. Now I?ll never sing straight-faced The song "What Child is This?". Peeves has tainted all the Christmas songs! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Professor, can you show me that blocking thing again?" Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry!" "What, drop my wand?" --Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu Dec 19 16:59:18 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:59:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Of Rats and Ron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55223733268.20021219085918@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48544 Hi, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 8:29:33 AM, anakinbester wrote: > Why does everyone, especially Ron, pick Scabbers up by his tail! > That's something I knew before I even owned a rat! you do _not_ pick > them up by their tails. EVER! Except in the direst of emergencies. > I can't imagine that JKR did not know this, though maybe she didn't. > If she did know that, though, it's an interesting point on Ron's > character that he does abuse Scabbers like this. (I'm sure it's not > meant to be mean, I'm not saying this) I tend to think that JKR is just repeating what many people still perceive as the best way to handle a rodent. We've had rodents as pets for many years now, and we thought it would be easy to find good homes for some of the offspring (we had one accidental breeding pair of gerbils, once). After seeing many of our daughter's friends trying to handle them, hearing them talk about pets in general, and hearing the parents opinions, we kept them all ourselves! Holding a rat/mouse/gerbil by the tail is still the stereotypical way many people think is the right way, and seeing how JKR chose the rat as animagi form for PP makes me think she doesn't see rats as the lovely pets they *can* be . Many pet store workers also practice this way of picking up mice/rats and pass it on to the future owners. And concerning PP/Scabbers fighting Ron to get away, I think that's also JKR not knowing how much it hurts to be bitten by a rat (or maybe we'll find out later that PP will save Ron, because he grew to love him, though he didn't seem very concerning when he cursed him during his escape). Harry also pulls Crookshanks out by the end of his tail, when he tries to sneak into the boys dorm, instead of grabbing him the correct way. Animals seem to serve as comic relief a bit in HP, too, looking at Errol and Pigwidgeon, for example. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From julia at thequiltbug.com Thu Dec 19 16:46:10 2002 From: julia at thequiltbug.com (juliamc) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:46:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: resisting Imperio Curse (was -Ship: H/H vs. R/H ) Message-ID: <20021219084610.13363.h009.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48546 > > This however scares the beejessus outta me! > " 'Yeah I know,' said Ron, who was skipping on every > alternative > step. He had much more difficulty with the [imperio] > curse than Harry > though Moody had assured him the effects would wear off > by lunch > time." -GoF USA version pg 253 > > I'm sure this got mentioned before, but yeah, this has > little red > flags written all over it, because it was mentioned the > Harry can > resist it, and that was important, so I can't imagine > it not being > important that Ron is so unable to fight it that he > still as problems > even after the curse is off. *Shudders* that to me doe > not bode well. > That just screams foreshadowing like nothing else has > to me. > > -Ani It didn't seem strange to me that Ron couldn't fight off the Imperio curse. If it was normal for people to be able to fight it off, it wouldn't be on the list of Unforgivable Curses because it would be pretty much useless. To me, it just pointed out (again) that Harry has special abilities, and fighting off Imperio was just one of them. I guess I should go back and read it again and see if it strikes me differently this time! :) Julia devoted H/H shipper! From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu Dec 19 17:17:15 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:17:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] resisting Imperio Curse (was -Ship: H/H vs. R/H ) In-Reply-To: <20021219084610.13363.h009.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> References: <20021219084610.13363.h009.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: <153224810603.20021219091715@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48547 Hi, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 8:46:10 AM, juliamc wrote: > It didn't seem strange to me that Ron couldn't fight > off the Imperio curse. I thought it was pretty normal on the first read, too. After all, Harry is the *only* one, who could resist it. Nobody else even showed a glimpse of being able to fight it at all. I wanted to know how Hermione did with the Imperius curse, but couldn't find any mention at all. Did I overlook it? Was she not put under it? And I wondered why JKR chose to have fake Moody say: "The Imperius Curse can be fought, and I'll be teaching you how, but it takes real strength of character, and not everyone's got it." It makes it sound as if most wizards and witches have "weak" characters, because if many could fight it, the curse wouldn't be so feared. Have we heard of anyone besides Harry who can fight it? Dumbledore? McGonnagal? Voldemort? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From jodel at aol.com Thu Dec 19 18:04:37 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:04:37 EST Subject: Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised Message-ID: <129.1e08f379.2b336435@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48548 Andrew asks; << Yet, for the majority of the book, the Mirror of Erised, which holds the Sorcerer's Stone within, is kept in an empty spare classroom where a first year student is able to stumble upon it one night. I always found this a little strange. If anyone else has any thoughts on the subject I would be glad to hear them. >> Well, here's one view (I'm not the only one who believes this), namely, that for the majority of the year the Mirror was in the heart of the labrynth. It was only moved up to the Library floor during the winter break, expressly for the pourpose that Harry should find it. Dumbledore also made a point of giving Harry his father's cloak and clearly had staked the room out waiting for Harry to show up. (There is disagreement as to whether Filtch and Snape deliberately herded Harry in the direction of the room it was is -- with the door conveniently ajar.) Exactly what Dumbledore's overall intentions in this regard may have been is a subject of considerable disagreement. But it is abundantly clear that the Mirror was moved out of the labrynth so that Harry could be briefed on its mode of operation, after which it was returned to the labrynth, before the rest of the students returned to the school. -JOdel From splinched at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 17:13:37 2002 From: splinched at hotmail.com (eudaemonia_splinched ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:13:37 -0000 Subject: Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samnjodie " wrote: > I'm new and I've just read over the summary of the debate i.e. who > will end up with whom. Frankly, I think it's obvious who Harry will > end up with, or at least who he wants to end up with (Cho).... > > Jodie :) Hi Jodie, I'm new too :) However, as much as I'd like to believe Harry will end up with the one who he wants to end up with, at this point it's hard to see how he will get together with Cho. From afar, she seems to be a sweet girl (no doubt why she's so popular) and clever as well (following Harry instead of finding the snitch herself), but she hasn't really made much of an effort in getting to be acquainted with him, has she? Okay, she's waved at Harry during the Quidditch Cup and wished him luck before the game against Slytherin, but it's really no different from any other admirer in the school. Additionally, after Cedric's death, how much of a fan of Harry will she be? No one but a few really knew the specifics of how Cedric died, but if a person were to be a student at that school I'd be somewhat skeptical of how the *great* Harry Potter was able to walk away -- he can save himself against Voldemort, but no one else eh? Don't get me wrong, I hope Harry engages in a relationship with the one he wants, but I know very little of Cho except for Harry's rose- colored perception, to like her TOO much right away. JK Rowling is fantastic (I think) in portraying very realistic interactions and relationships amongst teens in her books, and realistically heartbreak is an unavoidable part of it. :( Eu From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 19:15:54 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:15:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pickle_jimmy " wrote: > If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > > ...edited... > > Any thoughts > > Pickle Jimmy bboy_mn replies: This is an old question, but despite that, it still never fails to bring up new ideas and possibilities. My first thought was the 'Pope-mobile'. The Pope (Catholic Pope) has a car with a large bulletproof bubble, so he can ride in parades and people can see him, but can't harm him. Also, it's air conditioned which I'm sure the Pope appreciates. So, the analogy is a shield. You can find Harry. You can see Harry, but he is shielded from attack. A thought which brought about the revelation that the Killing Curse is unblockable. Therefore logically, this shield would not block a killing curse. So what good is it then? We know Harry has protection from his mother's sacrific, and when that sacrific was fresh and new, it saved Harry from the Killing Curse. But not the sacrifics is 11 to 14 years old. While we know it still offers him some protection, do we know that it still protects him from the Death curse??? It could be some type of retaliatory or pre-emptive offensive shield. While it does provide basic shielding, it will also attack anyone who comes after Harry with ill intent. Actually, this offensive shield is the best I've come up with so far. Someone with ill intent will be attacked before they get dangerously close to Harry. The next question is, what are the limits and boundaries of this offensive shield? Does it surround Harry while he is under his relatives care, and follow him where ever he goes? When he ran away, he in a sense left their care the minute he walked out the door. That made him very vulnerable. Or does it just surround his neighborhood at Privet Drive? The seems possible, but very limited. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From wcoreyjr at wi.rr.com Thu Dec 19 19:56:04 2002 From: wcoreyjr at wi.rr.com (Bill Corey Jr.) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:56:04 -0600 Subject: Harry's Protection References: <1040300509.2763.5584.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000c01c2a798$a9d6f620$39e4a018@gateway> No: HPFGUIDX 48551 "pickle_jimmy " wrote: > If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > I know that when Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he had just > escaped Aunt Marge - but surely the protection isn't just over > Privett Drive or he'd be vunerable while at school (muggle not > hogwarts). > And, why not extend this ancient magic to include Black (if it was > specific to Voldemort), and/or why not extend it to include Hogwarts > as well as Privett Drive - rather than use dementors? > And, if it only protects Harry against those that mean him harm, use > it on Hogwarts and if Black does get in it is obvious he isn't a > threat to Harry. > Any thoughts > Pickle Jimmy Now me: LV says in canon: "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection *as long as he is in his relations' care.* Not even I can touch him there..." (GoF p657, emphasis mine) This pretty clearly indicates that the protection being discussed can only apply to Privet Drive, because that's the only place where he has relations. It also pretty clearly implies that LV *does* know where Harry's been staying, because he knows he's been with his relations and is therefore safe... and since LV took pretty drastic steps to shorten Harry's family tree a few years back, that leaves the Dursleys (and, if you count godfathers, Sirius). Which brings up an interesting point all its own: would the ancient magic cover Harry going to stay with Sirius? Hmmmm... It's also repeatedly mentioned throughout the series that the only person LV truly fears is DD... so why would extra precautions need to be taken at Hogwarts unless DD isn't there? Hope that helps! Bill (still pretty new to the list and waiting ever-so-patiently for Book 5... *sigh*) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Dec 19 19:58:55 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:58:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48552 > > > Pickle Jimmy wrote: > > > > > > >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, > > > >why could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > > > >I know that when Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he > > > > > > >had just escaped Aunt Marge - but surely the protection isn't > > > >just over Privett Drive or he'd be vunerable while at school > > > >(muggle not hogwarts). > > > > > > > > > "heiditandy" wrote: > > There are a variety of possible answers to these questions. > > > It's possible that the ancient magic protecting Harry protects > him only from wizards or witches who intend to do him harm (which > would make the protection useless at keeping the house elves awak > > > I can't see how the ancient magic protects him from anyone who > > wants to hurt him, though, as Dudley seems to do a bit of that > in canon, so it seems like it should be something in between total > > protection and something limited. > > Becca Fran: > Here's my thought on this (my first on this board!): > a) I think the protection is tied to the Dursleys, not to the > location (Privet Drive). Dumbledore sends Harry to live with them > because they're his only relatives, even though they're Muggles > and hate magic. Also, I don't have my book with me, but doesn't > Voldemort state that he can't touch Harry "when he's with his > relations"? Pip: Good idea, Becca, I think you are probably right about it being tied to the Dursley's - or to be precise, to Harry's blood relations, Petunia and Dudley. Harry attends the same primary school as Dudley. PS/SS Ch. 3 p28 UK paperback: "When September came he [Harry] would be going off to secondary school, and, for the first time in his life, he wouldn't be with Dudley." So, if he is protected when he is with his blood relations, he was always under protection at school (except when Dudley was off sick - and I do wonder whether Petunia bothered to take Harry to school on those days, or just phoned the school to say both children were ill). Becca: > b) I think Heidi must be right about the protection being limited > either to Voldemort specifically or just to "witches and wizards" > since Sirius!Dog (animal form), Dobby (house elf), and Dudley > (Muggle) all manage to get to Harry while he's there. > > Another question on this: Are Sirius or Dobby actually intending > harm to Harry when they go to Privet Drive? Could the spell be > limited to only restrict those with evil intent? > > BeccaFran > *excited to be joining the discussion* Pip: Welcome! Dredging out my limited memory of folk magic, there are several protective charms that prevent evil from entering your home - so I would speculate that the Ancient Magic could indeed be limited to preventing those of evil intent getting near Harry. This would cover Sirius, Dobby, the Weasley's having no problems (apart from Sirius not actually knowing where Harry was). They all want to protect Harry, not harm him. Plus Dumbledore would have been setting up the protective spells within 24 hours of the Potters Fidelius Charm having been so disastrously broken. It's theoretically possible, from what we know of the Fidelius Charm (very little), that Dumbledore may have known in advance that the Potter's were to be betrayed - and have been completely unable to do *anything* about it until the charm was actually broken. The Potters may have been hidden from him, too. [This is speculation]. So Dumbledore may have wanted to use a protective spell on Harry that *does* allow people [of any species] trying to help him to get through. There is one difficulty in the field of ancient protective magic, though. Various folk tales emphasise a particular problem. The protective spells only protect against the *uninvited*. So it wouldn't work against Dudley or Aunt Petunia, because they live there, it wouldn't work against Aunt Marge [who whacked Harry on the shins once] because she was invited as Vernon's sister, they don't stop the Mason's entering because they also have an invitation. Nor would they stop Vernon's new business acquaintance who's thinking of making such a big order for drills - Mr L. Malfoy. Though I think even Vernon would be suspicious of his employer, Lord V De Mort [it's the glowing red eyes. *Such* a give-away ;-) ]. Though it is interesting to speculate that Vernon and Petunia may be so paranoid about the magical world because they have already been warned (in the famously unseen Dumbledore letter of PS/SS) not to invite any strange magicians to their home... [grin]. Pip!Squeak From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 20:20:52 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:20:52 -0000 Subject: Resisting the Imperius Curse In-Reply-To: <153224810603.20021219091715@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48553 Susanne asked: > I wanted to know how Hermione did with the Imperius curse, but > couldn't find any mention at all. Did I overlook it? Was she not > put under it? Now me: No, you didn't overlook it. There's no specific mention of how Hermione fared under Fake!Moody's Imperius curse. However, in Ch. 15 of GoF, it says that "Moody began to beckon students forwards in turn and put the Imperius curse upon them...Not one of them seemed to be able to fight the curse off, and each of them recovered only when Moody had removed it." This suggests to me that each student, including Hermione, was subjected to the curse, and each student was unable to fight it off. Harry appears to be the last student that Fake!Moody put the curse on, for the book then says that they left the class an hour later because Fake!Moody had "insisted on putting Harry through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw the curse off entirely." Susanne again: > And I wondered why JKR chose to have fake Moody say: "The Imperius > Curse can be fought, and I'll be teaching you how, but it takes > real strength of character, and not everyone's got it." It makes it > sound as if most wizards and witches have "weak" characters, > because if many could fight it, the curse wouldn't be so feared. Me again: I don't read "real strength of character" to mean a non-weak character. I think someone can have a strong character and still not be able to withstand the Imperius Curse. After all, Real!Moody and Viktor Krum couldn't withstand it, and their characters seem to be quite strong. What confuses me is that Harry, the only student who can withstand the curse, seems to do so innately. The "voice in the back of his brain" tells him not to obey Fake!Moody's commands. Yet Fake!Moody talks about "teaching" the students to fight the Imperius curse, and he assigns them reading on resisting the curse. And, of course, there is the question of why Fake!Moody worked so hard to help Harry learn how to completely resist the Imperius curse when Voldemort was planning to use it in the graveyard to either weaken Harry (according to MD theorists) or as an ego-enhancing strategy to show his power over Harry (according to Voldemort-as- egomaniac theorists). Numerous theories abound, including (1) that this is what Real!Moody would have done, so Fake!Moody needed to do it to keep his cover; (2) that Fake!Moody is really not Voldemort's "faithful servant" and was training Harry to resist the curse to thwart Voldemort; (3) that Fake!Moody was pushing Harry as far as he could go so he could report back to Voldemort on Harry's strengths and weaknesses; or (4) that Fake!Moody suffered so long under the Imperius curse that he was interested in seeing how someone could be able to be "taught" how to resist it. Susanne again: > Have we heard of anyone besides Harry who can fight it? Dumbledore? > McGonnagal? Voldemort? Me again: Canon only references Fake!Moody and Crouch Sr. Under the Veritaserum (Ch. 35, GoF), Fake!Moody says "I was starting to fight my father's Imperius curse." And he later says "After a while he [Crouch Sr.] began to fight the Imperius curse just as I had done." There could be others (Dumbledore makes sense to me), but these are the only two that have been mentioned so far. ~Phyllis From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Dec 19 21:43:44 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:43:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death in Book 5/ Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised Message-ID: <2882265.1040334224203.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48554 > Debbie:
> As for the death, Kristen, I also read about it possibly being Molly
> Weasley (I read it on MuggleNet, I think). HPforGUps had a long
> thread not that long ago about who's death it could be. It was very
> interesting, but came down to probably being Hagrid. However, the
> new "Molly" theory sounds pretty valid to me too.
>
Not Molly. No, no, no. Not Molly. I think she may die before it's all over, but she *can't* die before Harry has a nice long cry on her shoulder. It's foreshadowed all over the books, and it almost came in GoF, but not quite. He needs to get all that out, and I can't think of anyone else he wouldn't mind crying in front of. Of course, it is possible that he could have that cry in the middle of book five and Molly die later in the book. Ugh. I just *like* Molly so much. My money's still on Hagrid for the Book 5 death, though. Andrew writes: > Dumbledore takes so many precautions to protect the Sorcerer's
> Stone. He sends Hagrid to get Fluffy to guard the trap door, he
> stations Devil's Snare underneath, Enchants a room full of flying
> keys, and also bewitches a chess board. Yet, for the majority of the
> book, the Mirror of Erised, which holds the Sorcerer's Stone within,
> is kept in an empty spare classroom where a first year student is
> able to stumble upon it one night. I always found this a little
> strange. If anyone else has any thoughts on the subject I would be
> glad to hear them.
Well, I have a number of thoughts there. So here we go: First, the mirror may have not had the stone in it the whole time. Second, maybe the mirror was, as someone mentioned earlier, only placed their for the holiday and moved back once Harry'd seen it and learned how it worked. Third, if Dumbledore suspected someone on his staff, the whole "everybody put a spell/enchantment/etc. to guard the stone" thing could've been to fool them. Surely that was enough to keep it safe, there wouldn't need to be anything else there other than the stone sitting in the last room waiting to be taken, should anyone make it that far. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 21:53:34 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:53:34 -0000 Subject: Ancient vs. Old Magic (WAS:Theory on why harry had to go home) In-Reply-To: <169.18cb5195.2b32b631@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48555 Snuffles (srsiriusblack) wrote: > Voldemort also explains earlier on that he had not anticipated the > ancient magic which protected Harry when his mother sacrificed his > life to save him, Harry.... > > So, it would seem Voldemort isn't up to par in his ancient magic. > > THIS would explain why Dumbledore insists Harry return to Privet > drive first before travelling on to the Burrow-- i.e. Dumbledore > needs time to Voldemort-proof the Burrow. Now me: Not to be a nit-pick, but in Ch. 33 of GoF, Voldemort refers to Lily's sacrifice as "old magic" and to the protection Harry enjoys with the Dursleys as "ancient magic." I don't see "old" and "ancient" as necessarily meaning the same thing. I did a post on "ancient magic" earlier today, so I won't repeat myself here (even though I'm seriously starting to wonder whether anyone reads my posts, since points I've raised get raised again by others in later posts!). With regard to the "old magic," there's a great essay on the Lexicon about this which I think explains it very well (in a nutshell, it has to do with the power of a mother's love, which Voldy can't understand). I agree that Voldy forgot about the power of a mother's love when his AK rebounded on Baby!Harry. However, Voldy seems to know all too well about the ancient magic protecting Harry when he is in his relations' care. I do agree that Dumbledore sent Harry home to the Dursleys at the end of Book 4 because he's well protected there and it's the safest place for Harry to be, outside of Hogwarts. ~Phyllis From anakinbester at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 22:29:49 2002 From: anakinbester at hotmail.com (anakinbester ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:29:49 -0000 Subject: Of Rats and Ron In-Reply-To: <55223733268.20021219085918@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susanne wrote: > I tend to think that JKR is just repeating what many people > still perceive as the best way to handle a rodent. That thought crossed my mind, but Iw as kinda hoping it wasn't true. If it is, it's something that really bothers me, because some could seriously hurt there pet rat handeling him/her the way Ron handles Scabbers. I've seen two newpaper articles now, one about Owls and Pets, one about Snakes and pets, because these people fear the misconception the books are presenting about these animals. I'm surprised I haven't seen such a reaction from the rat community. They reallya re incredably pets, but you wouldn't get that from the book. Course, Peter isn't really a rat, so that explains some of it. That's also why I don't want to flat out say JKR knows nothing about rat behavior, because perhaps all the unratty things Peter did (attacking Goyle being the major one) were to foreshadow that, hey he's not really a rat! Still though that's an isue of do have with the books. I'm not found of her portrayal of the rat, nor the snake. The snake curled up is a travesty of a pet dog indeed =P I know perfectly wonderful snakes ^^;; Again, though, she's obviously playing to the commons terotype of the snake, as she seems to be doing with the rat. *sigh* as if those poor guys don't have enough bad PR as is ^^;; > and > seeing how JKR chose the rat as animagi form for PP makes me > think she doesn't see rats as the lovely pets they > *can* be . Oh don't even get me started *L* When people ask me why I think Peter can't be all that bad, I always use his animagi form as part of my argument ^__^ (I'm of the belief that the form does reflect some aspect of the person, wheterh or not that's supported in canon) *L* The only character trait my own little rat as that's ever bothered my is an overwhleming desire to eat my books, PoA being one of his favorits ^^;; (as I named the fellow that does this Peter, I find it highly humerous. Justin isn't nearly as enthralled with PoA) > And concerning PP/Scabbers fighting Ron to get away, I think > that's also JKR not knowing how much it hurts to be bitten > by a rat (or maybe we'll find out later that PP will save > Ron, because he grew to love him, though he didn't seem very > concerning when he cursed him during his escape). Oh that is true. I had forgotten he did that. You're right that does show quite a lack of concern. I am curiouse though what he thinks of Ron. I'd consider it odd if he didn't feel something for the boy, or if not Ron, maybe Percy. Ah well. All shall be revealed to the patient, eh? You're right though, judging from Peter's other behavior, the more likely answer is probably that JKR has never felt the "tiny feet of pain" nor an actual rat bite. -Ani From anakinbester at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 22:36:03 2002 From: anakinbester at hotmail.com (anakinbester ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:36:03 -0000 Subject: resisting Imperio Curse (was -Ship: H/H vs. R/H ) In-Reply-To: <20021219084610.13363.h009.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48557 Julia Wrote: > It didn't seem strange to me that Ron couldn't fight > off the Imperio curse. If it was normal for people to > be able to fight it off, it wouldn't be on the list of > Unforgivable Curses because it would be pretty much > useless. To me, it just pointed out (again) that Harry > has special abilities, and fighting off Imperio was > just one of them. I guess I should go back and read it > again and see if it strikes me differently this time! > :) See what got me is she made such a point of Ron's difficulty. I mean prior to that she had already stated that no one else could resist, and given example of everyone else not being able to resist. So to me, Harry's unique ability had already been established, so that passage stood out as something which might have more signigicance. -Ani From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 23:06:13 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:06:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: <000c01c2a798$a9d6f620$39e4a018@gateway> Message-ID: <20021219230613.53155.qmail@web13007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48558 "Bill Corey Jr." wrote: LV says in canon: "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection *as long as he is in his relations' care.* Not even I can touch him there..." (GoF p657, emphasis mine) This pretty clearly indicates that the protection being discussed can only apply to Privet Drive, because that's the only place where he has relations. Me: Not quite. He seems to be safe anywhere his relations are. Thus, even when he was being chased by Dudley and his gang at the village school, Harry was safer than when he was in the graveyard at Little Hangleton, as Dudley is his blood relation. He may not have thought he was very safe ;), but inasmuch as his magical abilities (winding up on the roof of the school) protected him from Dudley and company to a certain extent, it seems that by giving him grief and therefore being nearby, Dudley was in his own (ironic) way preventing any dark wizards from being able to sweep into the school and hurt Harry (if any of them were feeling so inclined). For this same reason, even though he was venturing away from Privet Drive when he went to the zoo, and later, when the family was fleeing the Hogwarts letters, even though he was not in the actual house, Voldemort's words imply that Harry was also perfectly safe from the evil intentions of dark wizards at those times, because of the proximity of his family members (specifically Petunia and Dudley, I should think, as he is only related to Vernon by his aunt's marriage). The only possible indication that the protection may also come from Vernon is that his uncle seems to be in the habit of driving Harry to King's Cross by himself--without Petunia and Dudley. So either Harry was also vulnerable during those drives (and later, on the Hogwarts Express--which may also be enchanted to make all of the riders safe) or Vernon's presence also gives Harry protection. Times he was NOT in close proximity to his family members include when he is riding on the Knight Bus to London and when he is flying in the Ford Anglia each time (first with Ron and the twins, going to the Burrow, and then just with Ron, on the way to Hogwarts). He also did not have his relatives' protection when he was with the Weasleys during any of his summer holidays and especially at the World Cup. However, as Dumbledore seems to have considered Mrs. Figg adequate protection for times when his relatives were not available, he may also have considered the Weasleys adequate protection for Harry at these times. It seems fairly clear that Dumbledore has some way of knowing when Harry is far enough away from his relatives that the protection will no longer be effective. Whether this is part of the protection or an additional security measure is unclear. What IS clear is that Fudge was waiting for Harry at the Leaky Cauldron for a good reason: someone informed him that Harry had left Privet Drive. It seems, in fact, that where he was heading was very precisely known, as well, or Fudge wouldn't have been there ahead of him. Dumbledore seems the most likely person for this monitoring, since he put the protection in place to begin with. Something else in canon supporting this theory is Harry receiving his Hogwarts letter at the Weasleys after Ron and the twins rescue him; Dumbledore obviously felt that he would be adequately protected there and did not upbraid him. It is also obvious that he KNEW where Harry was. And this time, it was not necessary to call out the Ministry, as a brief investigation of Privet Drive would reveal that no magic needed to be reversed there (as later happened with Aunt Marge). "Bill Corey Jr." wrote: It also pretty clearly implies that LV *does* know where Harry's been staying, because he knows he's been with his relations and is therefore safe... and since LV took pretty drastic steps to shorten Harry's family tree a few years back, that leaves the Dursleys (and, if you count godfathers, Sirius). Which brings up an interesting point all its own: would the ancient magic cover Harry going to stay with Sirius? Hmmmm... Me: I would guess that your are right about Voldemort knowing exactly where Harry was; his words don't lead one to believe otherwise. I would guess, however, that Sirius would not count as a relative for protection purposes, but OTOH, he is magical, like Arabella Figg and the Weasleys, and if Harry ever did go to live with Sirius, there is no reason to believe that Dumbledore couldn't devise security of a different nature to protect him, in addition to whatever direct protection Sirius could give Harry by dint of being a talented and powerful wizard. "Bill Corey Jr." wrote: It's also repeatedly mentioned throughout the series that the only person LV truly fears is DD... so why would extra precautions need to be taken at Hogwarts unless DD isn't there? Me: Well, perhaps after GoF, Dumbledore will be even more cautious about what goes on at the school. After all, Barty Crouch, Jr. was masquerading as an Auror for almost a year and he almost managed to get Harry killed right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course, that annoying gleam in his eye could mean that he will allow Harry to do something that seems dangerous on the surface, until we find out that Dumbledore knew that Harry was perfectly safe, having given his blood unwillingly to help reembody Voldemort.... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Dec 19 23:14:11 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:14:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Protection/ Harry's Blood Message-ID: <20253539.1040339651371.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48559 > "Bill Corey Jr." wrote:
> LV says in canon: "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection *as long as he is in his relations' care.* Not even I can touch him there..." (GoF p657, emphasis mine) This pretty clearly indicates that the protection being discussed can only apply to Privet Drive, because that's the only place where he has relations.
>
>
>
Barb: Not quite. He seems to be safe anywhere his relations are. Thus, even when he was being chased by Dudley and his gang at the village school, Harry was safer than when he was in the graveyard at Little Hangleton, as Dudley is his blood relation. He may not have thought he was very safe ;), but inasmuch as his magical abilities (winding up on the roof of the school) protected him from Dudley and company to a certain extent, it seems that by giving him grief and therefore being nearby, Dudley was in his own (ironic) way preventing any dark wizards from being able to sweep into the school and hurt Harry (if any of them were feeling so inclined). For this Okay, I'll jump in here. First I do think Harry's safe anywhere his relatives are. That being blood relations, correct? I think that perhaps the magical protection Harry has through his relations is something like that of the Mirror of Erised protecting the stone. Only he who wanted to find the stone but not use it could find it at all. Maybe only he who wants to find Harry but not "use" or harm him can find him at all. Now, continuing along the blood relation thing, Wormtail took Harry's blood to "resurect" Voldemort. Does this mean Voldemort is now Harry's blood relation? Probably not enough blood to mean anything (I'm not a scientist, sorry), but perhaps the blood has something to do with something (Dumbledore's gleam and all that). Follow me now to CoS. Harry uses the Basilisk's fang to destroy the diary. What else (besides venom) is on that fang? Harry's blood (bound to be after pulling the thing out of his arm, right?). No, I don't think it was Harry's blood that destroyed the diary, but perhaps we have some sort of symbolism here. I always wondered why it was the fang Harry used and not the sword. I don't have the book with me right now, was the sword still with the Basilisk at that point? Still, it could have been written so that Harry had the sword still in his hand (or laying nearby) to strike through the diary. Would that not have destroyed it? Would only the venom destroy it? Or was the fang necessary for the "blood of Harry" foreshadowing? Or am I completely and totally off track? (If I am, it wouldn't be surprising. You'd be off track too if you'd been with the same kids I've been with all day!) Richelle (who will now go transform herself into a princess (of sorts) for the school Christmas program. Joy. Thrill.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 23:25:27 2002 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (smiller_92407 ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:25:27 -0000 Subject: Things I don't understand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48560 As I've been re-reading the books, there are always a few running questions that bother me. I've been saving them up to keep from sending in a dreaded one-line post. Here are a few of my questions. 1 - In GOF, during the Imperious Curse DADA training class, Harry breaks both his kneecaps the first time he handles the curse. So how does he manage to continue the class, and "hobble" out afterwards on broken kneecaps? Shouldn't he have been carried directly to the hospital wing? 2 - GOF again, during the first task, after Harry learned how to Accio, why didn't he just Accio Egg and get the whole thing over with without the fanfare? For that matter, why didn't he Accio Weezy and Accio Cup? I know - the answer to that is: Because the story is better than way, but really .... 3 - GOF - Regarding Rita Skeeter, Hermione says "Give me 5 minutes in the library .." (paraphrased, I don't have my book) Presumably, she uses those 5 minutes to find out if Rita is listed as a registered animagus. Well, there is a big leap between understanding that Rita is a bug and finding her. So, did Hermione just happen to see a beetle flying by and it just happened to be the right one? How fortuitous is that? 4 - In C0S, Dobby dresses in a filthy pillowcase before he is freed. The pillowcase, I understand, but why is it filthy? Wouldn't the Malfoy family be grossed out and demand cleanliness from their servants? Winky isn't filthy until she gets too depressed to care about hygiene, so what's the problem with Dobby? ~ Constance Vigilance ~ From anakinbester at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 23:56:36 2002 From: anakinbester at hotmail.com (anakinbester ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:56:36 -0000 Subject: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smiller_92407 > 1 - In GOF, during the Imperious Curse DADA training class, Harry > breaks both his kneecaps the first time he handles the curse. So how > does he manage to continue the class, and "hobble" out afterwards on > broken kneecaps? Shouldn't he have been carried directly to the > hospital wing? I explained that away with magical healing. Maybe Madam Pomfry had given Moody something to help heal anything the kids broke. Given howmagic fixes obnes, it is at least plausable. You'd just have to assume something was on hand. > > 2 - GOF again, during the first task, after Harry learned how to > Accio, why didn't he just Accio Egg and get the whole thing over with > without the fanfare? For that matter, why didn't he Accio Weezy and > Accio Cup? I know - the answer to that is: Because the story is > better than way, but really .... Stress. Who here comes up with the best solution under stress? I like that he didn't come up with the perfect answer. It makes him more human. Im ean there are loads of tiems where I've hit myself and go, huh I did it the hard way didn't I. > > 3 - GOF - Regarding Rita Skeeter, Hermione says "Give me 5 minutes in > the library .." (paraphrased, I don't have my book) Presumably, she > uses those 5 minutes to find out if Rita is listed as a registered > animagus. Well, there is a big leap between understanding that Rita > is a bug and finding her. So, did Hermione just happen to see a > beetle flying by and it just happened to be the right one? How > fortuitous is that? She caught Rita in the end, while Harryw as in the hospital givein his story. There's apoint where Hermione leaves, slams a window or something like that, then comes back holding something. Presumably Rita had been spying as an animagi in the hospital wing, trying to learn what happened at the 3rd task. Hermione probably saw the bug, remebering the own beetle in her hair, but the two together, and assumed it to be Rita. Hermione was probably also on the look out. Good thing too! God knows what Rita would have made of all that! And Sirius's secret would be out! (I think. I don't recall all the timing off hand) > 4 - In C0S, Dobby dresses in a filthy pillowcase before he is freed. > The pillowcase, I understand, but why is it filthy? Wouldn't the > Malfoy family be grossed out and demand cleanliness from their > servants? Winky isn't filthy until she gets too depressed to care > about hygiene, so what's the problem with Dobby? That probably one of those out of sight out of mind deals. Winky seems to have gone with Crouch, where as I suspect Dobby didn't normally. I think Dobby only showed up with Malfoy in CoS for plot convience =P and because Malfoy was probably so angry to hear Dumbedore came back, that he didn't tell Dobby to stop polishing his shoes, so Dobby had to tag along. -Ani From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 00:27:43 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:27:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3250642967.20021219162743@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48563 Hi, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 4:23:18 PM, pickle_jimmy wrote: > or adds the mirror to the current > devices protecting the stone. And what kinds of theories are out there about how he put the stone into the mirror? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From probono at rapidnet.com Thu Dec 19 23:25:30 2002 From: probono at rapidnet.com (probonoprobono ) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:25:30 -0000 Subject: Who was 'chained for 12 years' , again? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48564 I am positive this issue has been discussed here ad nauseum and yet after exhaustive searching through the archives and a number of unsuccessful trips to Hypothetic Alley, I simply cannot find a record of any such discussions taking place. That said and with my apologies, here is the question. *Jeopardy theme music begins* In Professor Trelawney's second true prediction, who exactly is she referring to when she says, "His servant has been chained these 12 years..."? Because, no matter how I try to describe Pettigrew's 12 years as a rat, I simply can't describe it as being "chained". And the timing of the prediction doesn't seem to match either Barty Jr.'s escape from Azkaban or escape from his father's imprisonment. So that leaves Sirius and Buckbeak and possibly some other character we haven't met yet, right? I was hoping that you guys had come to some unanimous agreement about this issue and could perhaps fill me in? It's this little tidbit that my distrust of Sirius pretty much hinges upon. -Tanya From Lolatsukino at aol.com Fri Dec 20 00:16:35 2002 From: Lolatsukino at aol.com (Kelly ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:16:35 -0000 Subject: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smiller_92407 " wrote: > As I've been re-reading the books, there are always a few running > questions that bother me. I've been saving them up to keep from > sending in a dreaded one-line post. Here are a few of my questions. > > > 2 - GOF again, during the first task, after Harry learned how to > Accio, why didn't he just Accio Egg and get the whole thing over with > without the fanfare? For that matter, why didn't he Accio Weezy and > Accio Cup? I know - the answer to that is: Because the story is > better than way, but really .... > > > ~ Constance Vigilance ~ Those are some very appropriate questions, and I've also been wondering about how Hermione actually found and captured Rita Skeeter in her animagus form. As to that, I have no real suggestions. In reference to your second question, my thought is that simply using Accio really isn't a measure of one's magical ability. After all, presumably any witch or wizard of that age could perform it. There were probably of rules of the tournament that inhibited the use of such simple spells, and thereby forced the participants to use advanced magical skill to overcome obstacles. Kelly From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 00:53:50 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:53:50 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <3250642967.20021219162743@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48566 Susannewrote: > And what kinds of theories are out there about how he put > the stone into the mirror? I don't think Dumbledore actually *put* the stone *in* the mirror. I think it was more a case of the Dumbledore *hiding* the stone *with* the mirror. The mirror is obviously a powerful magical object, able to attune itself to the mind of the viewer. Dumbeldore could have simply "tuned" the mirror, like a radio, to a particular "frequency". When someone who didn't want the stone for personal gain looked into the mirror, the stone would be revealed. As for how Dumbledore did this, I don't know- maybe he created the Mirror of Erised, or transfigured the Stone into air, and the will of Harry, augmented by the mirror, simply reversed the spell. I think it would have to be the most magical object we've seen so far (with the possible exception of Hogwarts). Not anything conclusive, but it was something I'd never really thought of before. Thanks for the thought-provocation Susanne! See ya Roo From mb2910 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 01:04:25 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (meira_q ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 01:04:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione?? (was: Re: Hermione's wand and related question.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48567 Lisa: This question is eating me because: I have an inkling that Hermione will *inadvertantly* be the betrayer J.K. Rowling has alluded to in interviews, with a possibly darker plot development. Again why? 1. In a way she already has. In her third year Hermione didn't trust Harry and Ron's judgement or, importantly, their ability to listen to her concerns, resulting in her going behind their backs regarding Harry's Firebolt. Me: Oh, I hope Hermione will forever remain with the Good Guys. I agree with the person that said that here Hermione was just worried about her friend. I think it was a very brave thing for her to do. Not many would have the courage of going to McGonnagal and tell her about the Firebolt, while fully knowing how touchy Harry and Ron can be when it comes to Quidditch, and knowing that they would be *very* angry with them for that. This, IMO, shows that she was worried about her friend's safety (and I don't think it's exaggerated). Also shows that Hermione would prefer Angry!ALIVE!Harry rather than risking Dead!Harry. Someone mentioned that she had to know about Harry's and Sirius' background. Personally, I don't find it very far-fetched. Hermione is a very bright girl, she reads *a lot*, she has shown many times that she is capable of putting 2 and 2 together and draw logical conclusions (the potions riddle in PS, discovering about Lupin being a werewolf in PoA come to mind). " `[ ] I'm Hermione Granger, by the way, who are you?' `I'm Ron Weasley,' Ron muttered. `Harry Potter,' said Harry. `Are you really?' said Hermione. `I know all about you, of course ? I got a few extra books for background reading, and you're in Modern Magical History and The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts and Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth Century.' `Am I?' said Harry, feeling dazed. `Goodness, didn't you know, I'd have found out everything I could if it was me,' said Hermione. " (PS/SS chapter 6, The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters, p.79) I don't doubt for a second that she did know about Harry, Lily, James, Sirius and Peter more than she let on. I'm not saying that she actually knew about Scabbers actually being PP and that Sirius was in fact innocent because the whole Shrieking Shack scene in PoA blows this theory to smithereens (or at least I think it does (any takers on debating this? Or is it too far-fetched to do more than throw rotten tomatoes?). It could be that some of the things she says there, such as WP&P being Animagi isn't possible because the MoM keeps tags on Animagi and there were only 7 in this century, were only a cover-up so she wouldn't have to tell what she has really figured out). I don't remember if it says anywhere explicitly that she or Ron have seen the photo album, but I assume that being Harry's friends, he would have shown it to them. After seeing Harry's photo album, and seeing the wedding picture of James and Lily, with Sirius smiling there, I think that she would have realized (if she hadn't till then) that James and Sirius were good friends, and (this she definetely knew) that Sirius was considered second-in-command to Voldemort and he was currently imprisoned in Azkaban (this was common knowledge in the WW, and probably published in one of the books that she read). When he escaped, I think it would have been a very short leap of logic for her to think (like everybody else) that Sirius was after Harry, so, naturally, it wouldn't have been an evil thing for her to do to talk to McGonnagal about Harry's new broom that didn't even have a note attached. As for "their ability to listen to her concerns" (Lisa's words), Ron and Harry *didn't* listen to her concerns, so she went ahead and did what she knew was the right thing to do anyway. There's a difference between "betraying" them as in talking to McGonnagal about her suspicions regarding the Firebolt's sender and *betraying* as in handing Harry over to Voldemort. As for her not paying too much attention to the Crookshanks-Scabbers situation (which someone in this thread mentioned), Hagrid wisely advised that "people can be a bit stupid about their pets" (not exact quote, don't have PoA with me, a friend borrowed it to read). I hope my post makes some sense, Meira. From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 01:06:34 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:06:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts on the Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45252974252.20021219170634@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48568 Hi, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 4:53:50 PM, The wrote: > I don't think Dumbledore actually *put* the stone *in* the mirror. I > think it was more a case of the Dumbledore *hiding* the stone > *with* the mirror. Right! I didn't think he actually physically placed the mirror in. Should have asked: How did he make it possible for someone who didn't want to use the stone to acquire it through the mirror? That's probably not right, either! My English skills are leaving me, but I probably couldn't formulate it any better in German (my 1rst language), either. I haven't even read the books in German. Maybe I should ask my sister to send me some copies from Germany. I need to teach my daughter to read German anyhow :) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 20 00:46:32 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:46:32 EST Subject: don't know if this has been discussed... Message-ID: <129.1e127925.2b33c268@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48570 In GoF Voldemort states, "And here we have six missing Death Eaters.... three dead in my service. One too cowardly to return...he will pay. One who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course...and one who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service." - GoB paperback edition, pg. 651 last paragraph. The one too cowardly to return, I believe is Karkaroff. He fled as soon as the Dark Mark tattooed or branded- I am not sure which- on his arm became completely clear. The one already back in service is CrouchJr!Moody. The only other death eater unaccounted for by name is Severus Snape. (Please forgive me if this has already been discussed... I ran a search in the archive, but it only would allow me to look at recent messages) I know that many have theorised on who will die in book five and as there is so much speculation lately, I would like to add my thoughts....] "One who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course." This statement alludes to Snape's death. Presumably as Dumbledore asks Snape if he is ready for what he must do at the end of GoB, Snape will return to his spy role for the side of the Good. But, what if when Bertha Jorkins was broken by Voldemort, she revealed that Snape had spied. Certainly she would have known from the trials that Dumbledore gave his word that Snape had worked on their side after realising that a Death Eater was not who he wanted to be, and Voldemort would have wanted every bit of information on his followers he could obtain... to know when he was reborn who were still loyal to him. So, what if Snape is the big death? We know that JKR has said it would be difficult to write the Death. Snape's death could have been difficult for her. He has been an important character with whom many of us have connected. ( I being somewhat weirdly attracted to Snape, Black, and Lupin for different aspects of each) Killing off one of her characters who she as a writer shares an intimate bond would be difficult. It isn't that I want Snape to die. Hardly! I would be very upset by it... as I would if it were DD, Hagrid, Sirius or Remus. But, is this a possibility anyone has explored here? -Snuffles. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Fri Dec 20 01:35:28 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:35:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Protection References: <3DEB4B8000017A59@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <3E0273E0.CFFACB01@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48571 Emza at lineone.net wrote: > > Pickle Jimmy wrote: > > >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > >could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > >I know that when Harry saw Sirius!Dog he wasn't at home - he had just > > >escaped Aunt Marge - but surely the protection isn't just over > >Privett Drive or he'd be vunerable while at school (muggle not > >hogwarts). > > > > Equally, how did Dobby find Harry? Even without the ancient magical > protection, > how on earth did he know where Harry was? We know Ron and the other > Weasley's > know (they write to him by Muggle post, they drive magical cars > there), > but by what route could Dobby possibly have found out Harry's address? > > Hope I've done everything right. It's my first post and I'm sitting > somewhere > without the books. > > Emma #1. Those people who know where he is are not those who want to harm him. Thus they can come and go freely as long as they are not intending Harry any harm. #2. It doesn't say the ancient magic HIDES Harry, it only 'Protects' him.. Maybe the 'ancient magic' was what made his aunt 'blow up/swell up' and not Harry? Cause she might have had enough bad intent combined with being from a family that has wizards in it, to trigger the protection? A full wizard with ill intentions might not even be able to get near the place.. Jazmyn From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 02:38:19 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:38:19 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Resisting the Imperius Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48572 Phyllis Wrote: >I don't read "real strength of character" to mean a non-weak >character. I think someone can have a strong character and still not >be able to withstand the Imperius Curse. After all, Real!Moody and >Viktor Krum couldn't withstand it, and their characters seem to be >quite strong. Thought this might be as good a time as any to throw out something that I've been thinking about myself...about Real!Moody resisting the Imperius Curse... It would stand to reason that somebody in the Auror profession *would* be able to throw off the Imperius Curse, especially somebody as tough as nails like Moody. Taking it a step further, I would dare say that perhaps one of the qualifications to become an Auror would be the ability to quickly throw off the Imperius curse. I mean, look at it this way...it would be rather hazardous to have an Auror out there trying to catch dark wizards who couldn't shake the Imperius, now wouldn't it? For Pete's sake, my big brother was discharged from the Army for having asthma...I can't imagine that Aurors would do less. So I wonder, how come Moody couldn't do it? Then I look at chapter 35, "Veritaserum": ******************************************************* 'Dumbledore climbed into the trunk, lowered himself and fell lightly onto the floor beside the sleeping Moody. He bent over him. "Stunned - controlled by the Imperius curse - very weak," he said, "Of course they would have needed to keep him alive. Harry, throw down the imposter's cloak, Alastor is freezing. Madame Pomfrey will need to see him, but he seems to be in no immediate danger."' ******************************************************** Moody *was* under Imperius, but under what conditions? 'Stunned'. 'Freezing'. So bad that Madame Pomfrey would have to tend to him. Really extraordinary circumstances. But I bet you anything that under normal conditions, nobody would have been able to keep Mr. Moody under Imperius for one second. Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there. -Gail B...who really digs Aurors and who thinks Moody is too cool. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 20 02:00:14 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:00:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Protection Message-ID: <60.2ac143b9.2b33d3ae@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48573 > Emza at lineone.net wrote: > > > > Pickle Jimmy wrote: > > > > >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > > >could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > Ok. This part of the question I think I can answer. Sirius met up with Hagrid at the Potter's house right after the attacks. After a disagreement, Sirius allowed Hagrid to take Harry to Dumbledore and gave Hargid his flying motorcycle. Hagrid isn't very good at keeping secrets... not that he means to tell them, he just does... He probably told Sirius where he was going to meet Dumbledore. -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Dec 20 04:16:19 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:16:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Things I don't understand References: Message-ID: <005301c2a7de$8c760bc0$3b9dcdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 48574 Constance Vigilance writes: > 1 - In GOF, during the Imperious Curse DADA training class, Harry > breaks both his kneecaps the first time he handles the curse. So how > does he manage to continue the class, and "hobble" out afterwards on > broken kneecaps? Shouldn't he have been carried directly to the > hospital wing? I think the trick here is in the wording. In GoF, Chapter 15, page 232 (Scholastic paperback ed.) it says: "The next thing Harry felt was considerable pain. He had both jumped and tried to prevent himself from jumping--the result was that he'd smashed headlong into the desk, knocking it over, and, by the feeling in his legs, fractured both his kneecaps." The way I read it, it doesn't actually say he fractured his kneecaps, but that it *felt* like he'd fractured his kneecaps. Same thing as when you drop a table on your toe (don't ask!) and say you've broken your toe. Though it's not actually broken, it feels that way for a while. But after a few minutes you're able to hobble around sufficiently. If Harry's kneecaps had actually been broken and magically mended, it wasn't a very good job. He was still hobbling. So I don't think they were broken at all, just badly bruised. > 2 - GOF again, during the first task, after Harry learned how to > Accio, why didn't he just Accio Egg and get the whole thing over with > without the fanfare? For that matter, why didn't he Accio Weezy and > Accio Cup? I know - the answer to that is: Because the story is > better than way, but really .... The only thing I can think of with this one is that perhaps that wouldn't qualify as "taking on" the dragon? They'd still get the golden egg, but not actually get past the dragon to do it. But as you said, the story is better that way too. :) Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 04:19:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 04:19:14 -0000 Subject: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "smiller_92407 " wrote: > As I've been re-reading the books, there are always a few running > questions that bother me. I've been saving them up to keep from > sending in a dreaded one-line post. Here are a few of my questions. > > > 1 - In GOF, during the Imperious Curse DADA training class, Harry > breaks both his kneecaps the first time he handles the curse. ... > ... ... bboy_mn responds in part: I don't think 'broken kneecaps' is meant to be taken literally. Remember we are hearing this from Harry. Who doesn't like to stand out from the crowd to begin with. Now he is up in front of the class after seeing all/some of his classmate made to do rediculous things, and he's a little frustrated that he's next. Then he finds he can resist the curse but that's not good enough for Moody. He has to do it four times until he can throw it off easily. I think the way it is stated as Harry leaves the room, is a reflection of Harry's frustration. -end this part- > 2 - GOF again, ... ... ... why didn't [Harry] just Accio Egg and > get the whole thing over with without the fanfare? > bboy_mn responds in part: I think others have answered this. When we all look back on moments of stress, we ask our selves, 'Why didn't I do this? Why didn't I do that?' And the answer is, because it never occurred to us. Harry, under stress, isn't searching for solution, he is obsessed with the big big problems a hand and it disasterous possible consequences. -end this part- > 3 - GOF - Regarding Rita Skeeter, Hermione says "Give me 5 minutes > in the library .." Presumably, she uses those 5 minutes to find > out if Rita is listed as a registered animagus. Well, there is a > big leap between understanding that Rita is a bug and finding her. > ... ... ... > bboy_mn responds in part: In the hospital, Hermione is standing my the window sill. She sees a bug which could be any bug, BUT this bug has very characteristic markings around the eye. Marking that look very much like Rita Skeeter's unsual glasses. She slams here hand down (or possibly a drinking glass or a cup) and captures Rita. Hermione didn't go searching for Rita, Rita came to her. Now the bigger and more important question. Since Rita was there in the hospital room. She knows about Harry, Crouch/Moody, Sirius, and Dumbledore and Fudges disagreement. She struck the biggest journalistic jackpot of her entire career. But Hermione has made Rita promise not to publish anything for a year. So, let me ask you, does Rita seem like a woman who's word is her bond? Of course, Rita doesn't have to publish anything, she can tell someone and they can publish it. One problem... someone else get the credit for the story. A tough ethical question, for someone with obviously limited ethics. EXPECT BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous trouble. R.I.S.E - Rita Is So Evil -end this part- > 4 - In C0S, Dobby dresses in a filthy pillowcase before he is freed. > The pillowcase, I understand, but why is it filthy? Wouldn't the > Malfoy family be grossed out and demand cleanliness from their > servants? Winky isn't filthy until she gets too depressed to care > about hygiene, so what's the problem with Dobby? > > ~ Constance Vigilance ~ bboy_mn ends: Number four is a lot harder. It could be that having wore one and only one pillowcase his entire life, that pillowcase is a little dingy and threadbare. Again, we are not hearing reality when we hear about Dobby's pillowcase, we are hearing Harry's opinion of Dobbies pillowcase. Harry's clothes may be second hand, but they are only a year or two old compare to the decades age of Dobby's pillowcase. So, a decades old weather and worn pillowcase may seem pretty unattractive to Harry, and even more unattractive when Dobby blows his nose on it. The other possibility, is that Dobby is so downtrodden, so oppressed that he is depressed. As a house-elf, he does his duty, but his heart isn't in it. So he let's himself go, much the way Winky let herself go. Malfoy's may not notice, first of all, because the mark of a good house-elf is that you don't know that they are there, you never see them. I suspect that when Malfoy's are ordering Dobby to do something, they don't even look at him when they speak. The just bark their orders out into the air, and expect to see results. In addition, the Malfoy's seem like harsh taskmasters. The probably give their elves little free time to tend to themselves. I suppect what little free time Dobby had, was spend in depressive ruminations. Thoughts of how miserable and how trapped he was. Then he remembers how bad things used to be in the days of 'he who must not be named'. He sees that his life is better, better because 'he who must not be named' is gone. And in his deep depressive ruminating thoughts, he realizes why things are better. He realizes who made things better, and he becomes obsessed with 'the boy who lived'. Thinking about 'the boy who lived' in his late night dark depression and holding on to that obsession as his only hope, as the only good to ever befall his miserable life. Soon he has Harry built-up in his mind to a larger than life hero. A savior of the poor down trodden retched huddled masses yearning to be free. Then he hears a plot. Lucius speak of sending Tom Riddles diary to Hogwarts to destory the school and everyone one in it (not literally, but Malfoy is enjoying the melodrama). I agree with those who say that ideally Malfoy would have liked to give the diary to Harry. What sweet twisted irony that is. The man... er... boy who destroy Lord Voldemort, becomes the means by which Lord Voldemort returns. An to sweeten it even more, it is Harry Potter's own life force that gives Riddle his new life force. Oh what sweet twisted irony. But how can Dobby risk any danger befalling the greatest man who ever walked the face of the earth (he's spent way to much time obsessing over Harry). Against his very nature and at risk of his own life, he knows what he must do. He must save Harry Potter, even if he has to kill him to do it. [I doubt he thought that last part, but functionally, that's what happened. Hey, you know, this would make a great story. ;)] Just a few thought. bboy_mn From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 04:38:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:38:41 -0800 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13265703526.20021219203841@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48576 Hi, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 8:19:14 PM, Steve wrote: > EXPECT > BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous trouble. Yes! This may be Hermione's big mistake, and I don't understand why she doesn't see the problems her little deal with Rita can cause. This is definitely a time to consult Dumbledore or McGonagall and let them know! Hermione is the one of the trio who usually does the logical thinking, but unless she knows something we don't, she's dropped the ball, here. I'd be very surprised if this doesn't come back in later books to haunt them. And Hermione will feel very, very bad if Harry or someone else are put into danger because of this. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 04:53:52 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 04:53:52 -0000 Subject: don't know if this has been discussed... In-Reply-To: <129.1e127925.2b33c268@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > In GoF Voldemort states, > The only other death eater unaccounted for by name is Severus Snape. > ... ... ...he will be killed, of course." > > ..big edit... > > This statement alludes to Snape's death. Presumably as Dumbledore > asks Snape if he is ready for what he must do at the end of GoB, > Snape will return to his spy role ... ... ... > > -Snuffles. bboy_mn responds: I believe you underestimate the great Severus Snape. Snape's story will not be that he was a spy, but that he was a double agent. He spied for both sides, but the spying he will claim he did for Dumbledore was in the form of too little too late. Yes, he gave out information, but nothing that could have any serious effect on Voldemort, and he brought back much more valuable information to the Death Eaters than he gave to Dumbledore. He is still in the ideal position, the perfect situation to continue as a double agent. He is trusted by Dumbledore, he has his confidence, and he is right there in the heart of things at Dumbledore's side. He couldn't possibly be in a better position to aid Voldemort. Of course, that will be the same story he gives Dumbledore. The real question is, who's side will get the valuable information and who's side will get the worthless information. Short version, Snape will not deny that he was a spy. He will claim that he was a worthless spy for Dumbledore, and a valuable spy for Voldemort. Snape... you smooth talking devil you. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Dec 20 05:09:17 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:09:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Hermione?? (was: Re: Hermione's wand and related question.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48578 Meira said (regarding the idea that Hermione will inadvertently betray Harry): > 1. In a way she already has. > In her third year Hermione didn't trust Harry and Ron's judgment or, > importantly, their ability to listen to her concerns, resulting in > her going behind their backs regarding Harry's Firebolt. What judgment did Harry and Ron show? None whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. Even though Sirius turned out to be innocent, certainly no one knew that at this point of the story. For me, Hermione showed exceptional judgment, as did McGonnagle. In any case, I find it a bit of a stretch to apply the word "betrayal" to this particular incident. Guilty of sticking her nose into someone else's business? Certainly. Suzanne From Bond284 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 03:21:08 2002 From: Bond284 at hotmail.com (hpotter284 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 03:21:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's Protection In-Reply-To: <60.2ac143b9.2b33d3ae@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48579 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > > > > Emza at l... wrote: > > > > > > Pickle Jimmy wrote: > > > > > > >If Harry is so protected (by ancient magic) at the Dursleys, why > > > >could Sirius (the dog) find him so easily in PoA?? > > > > > Ok. This part of the question I think I can answer. Sirius met up with Hagrid > at the Potter's house right after the attacks. After a disagreement, Sirius > allowed Hagrid to take Harry to Dumbledore and gave Hargid his flying > motorcycle. > > Hagrid isn't very good at keeping secrets... not that he means to tell them, > he just does... > He probably told Sirius where he was going to meet Dumbledore. > -Snuffles > > There's also the small point that Sirius was close friends with Lily and James before they dies. It's very possible that Lily told Sirius where her sister lived, maybe even having him visit over the holidays. After the Potters' death, it would only seem logical that Harry would be taken to the only relations left, hence Petunia (Evans) Dursley. hpotter284 From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Fri Dec 20 02:13:04 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:13:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Of Rats and Ron References: <55223733268.20021219085918@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <3E027CB0.C24DB0F4@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48580 Susanne wrote: > > Hi, > > Thursday, December 19, 2002, 8:29:33 AM, anakinbester wrote: > > > Why does everyone, especially Ron, pick Scabbers up by his tail! > > That's something I knew before I even owned a rat! you do _not_ pick > > > them up by their tails. EVER! Except in the direst of emergencies. > > > I can't imagine that JKR did not know this, though maybe she didn't. > > > If she did know that, though, it's an interesting point on Ron's > > character that he does abuse Scabbers like this. (I'm sure it's not > > meant to be mean, I'm not saying this) > > I tend to think that JKR is just repeating what many people > still perceive as the best way to handle a rodent. > > We've had rodents as pets for many years now, and we thought > it would be easy to find good homes for some of the > offspring (we had one accidental breeding pair of gerbils, once). > > After seeing many of our daughter's friends trying to handle > them, hearing them talk about pets in general, and hearing > the parents opinions, we kept them all ourselves! > > Holding a rat/mouse/gerbil by the tail is still the > stereotypical way many people think is the right way, and > seeing how JKR chose the rat as animagi form for PP makes me > think she doesn't see rats as the lovely pets they > *can* be . > > Many pet store workers also practice this way of picking up > mice/rats and pass it on to the future owners. > > And concerning PP/Scabbers fighting Ron to get away, I think > that's also JKR not knowing how much it hurts to be bitten > by a rat (or maybe we'll find out later that PP will save > Ron, because he grew to love him, though he didn't seem very > concerning when he cursed him during his escape). > I have raised rats for a long time and have maintained the Fancy Rat FAQ online for years. Its okay to pick up a rat by the tail IF you do it the right way. Grasping the base of the tail, close to the body. While its preferred to pick them up by the body, you can't always do this when a rat is frightened, angry, bad tempered or just not tame enough. Ron was dealing with what he thought was an upset Scabbers, so he opted for the safer tail lift then risk getting nipped. > Harry also pulls Crookshanks out by the end of his tail, > when he tries to sneak into the boys dorm, instead of > grabbing him the correct way. > So how many pets has Harry been allowed to have that he would know the proper way to handle cats? I don't see the Dursley's having any cats. > Animals seem to serve as comic relief a bit in HP, too, > looking at Errol and Pigwidgeon, for example. > > -- > Best regards, > Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net Don't forget the amazing bouncing ferret. Jazmyn From bobafett at harbornet.com Fri Dec 20 08:13:36 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:13:36 -0800 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand References: <13265703526.20021219203841@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48581 Steve wrote: > EXPECT > BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous trouble. Susanne said: >>>Yes! This may be Hermione's big mistake, and I don't understand why she doesn't see the problems her little deal with Rita can cause.<<< me:BoBaFeTT I don't expect anything but good things from Rita. Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus and that's how she gets her scoops. Why would she risk her entire way of life for small-time revenge like that? BoBaFeTT From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 11:40:15 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:40:15 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "uncmark" wrote: > Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 > Gretchen wrote: > >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have > > paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the > > money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do I believe McGonagall paid for the broom herself, from her own money. Why? Because Snape has obviously been lording over her Slytherin's many-years-in-a-row wins at Quidditch. She probably figures it is a good investment of her money because it will restore her pride in her house Quidditch team, and by "Prisoner of Azkaban", it is as Griffyndor finally wins the Quidditch Cup. As for the goblins at Gringott's bank, I believe their primary concern is with protecting the money in their vaults - nothing else. More than likely they wouldn't report Sirius Black accessing his own money to buy Harry Potter a Firebolt because I doubt they'd care if Black was a wanted criminal - just as long as he has his key or password or whatever to his own vault. The same goes with Molly Weasley fetching money for Harry Potter out of his vault while he's at the Quidditch World Cup. As long as she has permission from the vault's owner (Harry), they will allow her access. I'm more curious about why Harry allowed Molly Weasley to pick up some money for him from his vault when he'd gone to the effort to try to hide their view of his piles of money (compared to the Weasley's pitiful pile of coins) out of embarassment over his wealth just the year before. Maybe Harry felt better about it because the Weasley's had won the Daily Prophet Jackpot that summer and went to Egypt? Diana From renitentraven at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 11:43:32 2002 From: renitentraven at hotmail.com (armillarygirl ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:43:32 -0000 Subject: Death in Book 5 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48583 I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be Hedwig after J.K. Rowling stated in chat that Harry *may* get a new pet, but she couldn't say more. The fan hint could be a device to throw us of the scent of a catastrophic human death so we feel it the more keenly, along with the characters. Lisa (who loves Hermione so much she is currently reading Women In Love with a French dictionary in order to assess possible similarities between her and Hermione Roddice) From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Fri Dec 20 12:25:24 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:25:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 References: Message-ID: <3E030C34.2181D730@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48584 "armillarygirl " wrote: > > I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be Hedwig > after J.K. Rowling stated in chat that Harry *may* get a new pet, but > she couldn't say more. > > The fan hint could be a device to throw us of the scent of a > catastrophic human death so we feel it the more keenly, along with > the characters. > > Lisa (who loves Hermione so much she is currently reading Women In > Love with a French dictionary in order to assess possible similarities > between her and Hermione Roddice) > > What happens if he loses Hedwig and Fawkes changes masters. Fawkes is immortal after all and Dumbledore is getting very old.. Being Fawkes is a more 'magical' familiar then most, perhaps HE decides when he will change masters and not the master? People with fickle cats will understand this, as cats sometimes 'change owners' and don't care a wit what the old owner or sometimes the new one, thinks of this.. I 'inherited' a cat in this fashion, who just decided 'I' was the one.. and I lost another cat to another owner who decided he didn't like me. If cats can pull this, then certainly a magical, immortal creature can be this way.. Though I cannot see Fawkes carrying mail... For several reasons, least of all he would be 'above' that sort of thing. Jazmyn From MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Dec 20 13:01:29 2002 From: MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM (mitchbailey82 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:01:29 -0000 Subject: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "armillarygirl " wrote: > I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be Hedwig > after J.K. Rowling stated in chat that Harry *may* get a new pet, but > she couldn't say more. > > The fan hint could be a device to throw us of the scent of a > catastrophic human death so we feel it the more keenly, along with > the characters. I've always taken this inforamtion as possible proof for the death of Hagrid - afterall if Hagird dies who's going to look after Fang? I've also heard people suggest that when Dumbledore dies Harry might get Fawlkes - so it coul also be taken as evidence for Dumbledores death. Or Harry could just get a new pet. Either way Harry doesn't need to lose Hedwig in order to get a new pet - I'm sure he's quite capable of looking after 2 pets - although what the Dursleys would think of another pet (especially if it was Fang - judgng by Petunias reactions to Magres dog) is another thing ;-) Michelle From ursula.mueller at same.net Fri Dec 20 14:25:55 2002 From: ursula.mueller at same.net (Ursula Mueller.=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_FV-Mp.gr=F6na?=) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:25:55 +0100 Subject: Book 5: A Weasley going to Azkaban (or worse)? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48586 Considering the fact that Arthur Weasley is a *huge* muggle friend and he and Lucius Malfoy do not like each other very much (to say the least ... ), there is quite a big risk that he is landing in Azkaban in Book 5 (or worse). The Death Eaters want to get rid of Arthur and I am sure there is a dirty plot going on against him and his family. Arthur might even be a tragic death JK Rowling is talking about. Any comments? ***Ursula Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus. - HP series From julia at thequiltbug.com Fri Dec 20 14:41:41 2002 From: julia at thequiltbug.com (Julia McCallum ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:41:41 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48587 > Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus and that's how she gets her scoops. Why would she risk her entire way of life for small- time revenge like that? > > BoBaFeTT Maybe she thinks Hermione will let out that her little animagus secret if she (Rita) writes anymore stories about Harry and Co? I don't see Hermione actually stooping to blackmail, but Rita may not realize that. Julia From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 14:47:26 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:47:26 -0000 Subject: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mitchbailey82 " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "armillarygirl > " wrote: > > I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be > Hedwig > > after J.K. Rowling stated in chat that Harry *may* get a new pet, > but > > she couldn't say more. > > > I've always taken this inforamtion as possible proof for the death of > Hagrid - afterall if Hagird dies who's going to look after Fang? > > I've also heard people suggest that when Dumbledore dies Harry might > get Fawlkes - so it coul also be taken as evidence for Dumbledores > death. > That was my first thought the minute I read that in the chat -- that Fawkes would choose to go to Harry when Dumbledore dies. In the post previous to this one, Jazmyn suggests that Fawkes might just switch owners, and leave a living Dumbledore to go to Harry. I see this as very unlikely; after all, one of the characteristics of phoenixes is that they are extremely loyal. > Or Harry could just get a new pet. > > Either way Harry doesn't need to lose Hedwig in order to get a new > pet - I'm sure he's quite capable of looking after 2 pets - although > what the Dursleys would think of another pet (especially if it was > Fang - judgng by Petunias reactions to Magres dog) is another thing > ;-) > > > Michelle I always sort of hoped that Harry would meet up with that snake from the zoo that he first talked to. After all, I'm probably not alone in being disappointed that Harry uses his Parsletongue so seldom, and I like snakes. Suppose the snake had trouble getting off the island -- hey, it could happen. And then imagine the Dursleys' reactions when he brought *that* home and then started speaking to it! :-D Anne From julia at thequiltbug.com Fri Dec 20 14:32:40 2002 From: julia at thequiltbug.com (Julia McCallum ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:32:40 -0000 Subject: Resisting the Imperius Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48589 > And, of course, there is the question of why Fake!Moody worked so > hard to help Harry learn how to completely resist the Imperius curse > Numerous theories abound, (2) that Fake!Moody is really not > Voldemort's "faithful servant" and was training Harry to resist the > curse to thwart Voldemort; I'd love for that to be true! It would be great if there was a saboteur in Voldemort's inner circle. (Excuse me if I get this next part wrong, I'm at work slacking and don't have my books handy!) Didn't Dumbledore give Fake!Moody the Veritaserum? If so, and he really was working against Voldemort, the Veritaserum should have made Fake!Moody reveal that. Unless Fake!Moody has some special ability or immunity to Veritaserum that we don't know about, which I doubt. Julia From renitentraven at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 14:43:40 2002 From: renitentraven at hotmail.com (armillarygirl ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:43:40 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48590 Angela writes: If Hermione betrays Harry, she will know what she is doing. I agree with her assessment that Hermione is unlikely to do so if the circumstances entail her - *betraying* as in handing Harry over to Voldemort - (meira q). However I think Hermione has an Archille's heel. Crouch-as-Moody has in all likelihood passed on some intelligence. - She has a pre-disposition to seeing everyone as innoncent until proven guilty, a lovely personality trait but........... - "Harry needs her desperately", a J.K. Rowling chat, a fact we all know and certain shipper's subscibe to. ;) - Her independant sometimes headstrong nature towards things she cares deeply about. I think a betrayal may be a concerned sharing of a secret or weakness of Harry's to the wrong confidante, perhaps for some reassurance. I then think her resulting isolation from two furious friends may leave her vunerable to further manipulation. I don't think Hermione's status as a muggle would protect her. J.K.Rowling was quoted on Oprah as confirming muggles would get involved in some way in the war. (Lisa apologises for hear-say). I can see Voldemort briefly compromising his pure-blood stance for what he considers to be a brilliant tactical manoeuvre. Upping his numbers via some clever propaganda or even Imperious. He wouldn't call them cannon-fodder or human-shields to their face. However I do *not* think Hermione is stupid enough to become a death- eater. ( A trifle hurt that people think *I'm* that stupid) :) Lisa, (who loves Hermione so much she almost bought a female Hermione to go with her bunnies Harry and Ron before the pet shop owner said "You may own a thesaurus but did you even read the manual I sold you?) I also love this group, (breathes easier for Hermione after sucessful debunking of ridiculous wand theory). From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Dec 20 14:49:44 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:49:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 Message-ID: <10112467.1040395784938.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48591 Lisa writes: > > I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be Hedwig
> after J.K. Rowling stated in chat that Harry *may* get a new pet, but
> she couldn't say more.
>
> The fan hint could be a device to throw us of the scent of a
> catastrophic human death so we feel it the more keenly, along with
> the characters.
Although I see how Hedwig could be considered a fan of Harry, as well as a death that would be difficult to write, I just don't see JKR killing Hedwig. First of all, though Hedwig is a pet, he's also servicable. He has jobs to do, generally hangs out in the owlery, not with Harry in the dorms, etc. Of course he visits from time to time, but Harry also goes to the owlery as well. I could see Harry getting another pet that would be kept it the dorms with him. But what, I wonder? Can't see Harry with a toad or a cat. But as someone already said, if Hagrid were to die, what happens to Fang? He is rather fond of Harry, so he'd be a natural choice. And I could see Dumbledore asking Harry to care for Fang for several reasons. One, something to remember Hagrid by. Two, something to keep him busy and feel like he's *doing* something for Hagrid. Three, Fang would need someone he knew to look after him, dogs mourn too, and I think Dumbledore would understand that and want even the dog to not be depressed. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Fri Dec 20 16:08:07 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:08:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 References: <10112467.1040395784938.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: <002c01c2a841$fd0b6c00$1e4053d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 48592 Richelle writes: Although I see how Hedwig could be considered a fan of Harry, as well as a death that would be difficult to write, I just don't see JKR killing Hedwig. First of all, though Hedwig is a pet, he's also servicable. He has jobs to do, generally hangs out in the owlery, not with Harry in the dorms, etc. Of course he visits from time to time, but Harry also goes to the owlery as well. I could see Harry getting another pet that would be kept it the dorms with him. But what, I wonder? Can't see Harry with a toad or a cat. But as someone already said, if Hagrid were to die, what happens to Fang? He is rather fond of Harry, so he'd be a natural choice. And I could see Dumbledore asking Harry to care for Fang for several reasons. One, something to remember Hagrid by. Two, something to keep him busy and feel like he's *doing* something for Hagrid. Three, Fang would need someone he knew to look after him, dogs mourn too, and I think Dumbledore would understand that and want even the dog to not be depressed. Me: My thought was that the second "pet" Harry gets is a big black dog named Snuffles. Makes good sense to me that although Dumbledore has sent Black to be with Lupin "for awhile," there may be a more immediate need for Black to be right there with Harry now that LV has a body back, and the war is about to be stepped up. Harry may not have that protection from his mother anymore, and it makes good sense to put a very clever wizard closer to Harry. Obviously, being in Hogwarts under Dumbldore's watchful eye hasn't helped Harry that much. Voldemort, with Pettigrew and Crouch Jr.'s help was able to kidnap Harry right out from under Dumbledore's nose. And, since Pettigrew has knowledge of the Marauder's Map and the secret passages, Black being right there with Harry as his faithful dog would be a clever more. I would think the added protection of Black's constant companionship, his skill and magical knowledge - plus the benefit to Harry of having Black right there as a father figure - would be a great protection and comfort to Harry. He would get to know his godfather better and learn that the adults in his world at Hogwarts are far better than what he has learned about adults from the Dursleys. Then too, Crookshanks and Black have an understanding. Black is able to get Crookshanks to do his bidding, and one of those tasks that Crookshanks could carry out is keeping an eye open for a certain rat or sending messages. With Snuffles right there, he and Dumbledore can consult each other. There would also be the added spice, for good reading, of the animosity between Black and Snape. Yes, I'd like to see Harry's new pet be Snuffles. Grace From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 16:18:58 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:18:58 -0000 Subject: Who was 'chained for 12 years' , again? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48593 Tanya wrote: > In Professor Trelawney's second true prediction, who exactly is she > referring to when she says, "His servant has been chained these 12 > years..."? > > Because, no matter how I try to describe Pettigrew's 12 years as a > rat, I simply can't describe it as being "chained". And the timing > of the prediction doesn't seem to match either Barty Jr.'s escape > from Azkaban or escape from his father's imprisonment. So that > leaves Sirius and Buckbeak and possibly some other character we > haven't met yet, right? Now me: I think we need to read "chained" more figuratively than literally. I think Trelawney is referencing Pettigrew, since he is the "servant" who "breaks free" "before midnight" and "sets out to rejoin his master." Pettigrew also is the servant who helps Voldemort rise again. Pettigrew has been chained in a figurative sense ? locked in a rat's body. I think if I were posing as a rat for 12 years, I would feel chained, also! Pickle Jimmy asked: > But... how much do we trust Trelawney?? There seems to be a load of > weight placed on a flippant remark by Dumbledore about her number > of actual predictions. Personally I think Ron is right, "She's an > old fraud." Me again: JKR herself has said that Trelawney's first prediction will be important (1999 Barnes and Noble Chat, see: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/text.htm): Q: "In PRISONER OF AZKABAN, Professor Dumbledore mentions Professor Trelawney's `second true prediction.' What was Professor Trelawney's first true prediction?" JKR: "I love a perceptive reader! Professor Trelawney's first prediction was a very important one. And you will find out in due course what it was, but I'm not going to reveal it at this stage. Sorry." Tanya again: > I was hoping that you guys had come to some unanimous agreement > about this issue and could perhaps fill me in? Me again: There is no such thing as unanimous agreement on this list ? that's what makes it so much fun! ~Phyllis From sammer at webspan.net Fri Dec 20 15:53:29 2002 From: sammer at webspan.net (Joanne Sammer) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:53:29 -0500 Subject: Harry's pet/Rita-Hermione blackmail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48594 About Harry's new pet, Michelle wrote: > >> Or Harry could just get a new pet. >> >> Either way Harry doesn't need to lose Hedwig in order to get a new >> pet - I'm sure he's quite capable of looking after 2 pets - although >> what the Dursleys would think of another pet (especially if it was >> Fang - judgng by Petunias reactions to Magres dog) is another thing >> ;-) Me: Maybe Harry's new pet is a big shaggy black dog. About Rita the beetle and Hermione, BoBaFeTT wrote: > Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus and that's how she gets her scoops. Why would she risk her entire way of life for small- time revenge like that? and Julia replied: Maybe she thinks Hermione will let out that her little animagus secret if she (Rita) writes anymore stories about Harry and Co? I don't see Hermione actually stooping to blackmail, but Rita may not realize that. Me: Assuming Rita was in the hospital wing the whole time Dumbledore was talking, Rita has a lot more on everyone else than Hermione has on Rita. Sure, Rita is an unregistered animagus, but so is Sirius. Moreover, Dumbledore and Co. have been knowingly aiding and abetting a convicted murderer (Sirius) and are now plotting activities that go against the MoM. I agree with someone else (can't remember who) who said that it will be Hermione is the inadvertent betrayer. I think Hermione will be outsmarted by Rita and bad things will happen as a result. Joanne From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 20 16:41:02 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:41:02 -0000 Subject: Who was 'chained for 12 years' , again? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48595 Tanya wrote: In Professor Trelawney's second true prediction, who exactly is she referring to when she says, "His servant has been chained these 12 years..."? > > Because, no matter how I try to describe Pettigrew's 12 years as a rat, I simply can't describe it as being "chained". << IIRC, in medieval art and heraldry a chain indicates enchantment and chains on an animal may indicate that it is transformed. So this is a clue pointing at Pettigrew. Pippin From sammer at webspan.net Fri Dec 20 16:30:38 2002 From: sammer at webspan.net (Joanne Sammer) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:30:38 -0500 Subject: Trelawney's first prediction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48596 >Pickle Jimmy asked: > >> But... how much do we trust Trelawney?? There seems to be a load of >> weight placed on a flippant remark by Dumbledore about her number >> of actual predictions. Personally I think Ron is right, "She's an >> old fraud." > >Phyllis: > >JKR herself has said that Trelawney's first prediction will be >important (1999 Barnes and Noble Chat, see: >http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/text.htm): > >Q: "In PRISONER OF AZKABAN, Professor Dumbledore mentions Professor >Trelawney's `second true prediction.' What was Professor Trelawney's >first true prediction?" > >JKR: "I love a perceptive reader! Professor Trelawney's first >prediction was a very important one. And you will find out in due >course what it was, but I'm not going to reveal it at this stage. >Sorry." > Me: I am not sure this is it, but this is what I caught on my last reading of PoA... Ch. 11 Christmas lunch when Trelawney comes to join the table. "Sibyll, this is a pleasant surprise," said Dumbledore, STANDING UP. (my emphasis) further down... "Never forget that when thirteen dine together, THE FIRST TO RISE will be the first to die!" Trelawney had not actually joined them at that point, so I am not sure if Dumbledore standing up counts as there were still only 12 actually dining. But I was struck by this pointed reference to Dumbledore standing up. There is no mention of him standing up when Ron and Harry join them. Joanne From mb1984 at prodigy.net Fri Dec 20 16:24:53 2002 From: mb1984 at prodigy.net (MB1984) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:24:53 -0600 Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand) In-Reply-To: <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48597 How many illegal animagi do you all think there are? On another list some people commented that JKR had overused the idea and if another were to pop up it would stretch the idea to implausibility. On the other hand, I recently read a fanfic in which the only reason McGonagall was forced to register herself was that she choked during the test for her Apparating license and transformed into a cat instead. This lends credence to the theory that there are many more animagi than are listed by the Ministry and they keep their ability hidden for their own purposes. After all, what's the good of being able to transform into an animal if everyone knows all about it? Becoming an animagus is supposed to be quite difficult, but I think if three unsupervised schoolchildren in one year can manage it, it can't possibly be a talent as rare as only seven (or eleven) in a century. I'm more inclined to believe that it IS a difficult process, but there are many talented wizards and witches who have managed it and then kept quiet about the ability. I'm also curious as to whether Harry himself will become an animagus. It seems awfully logical that he would - he's an extremely powerful wizard and both his father and godfather had/have the talent - and it would give him an advantage against Voldemort. For that matter, Dumbledore is powerful and mysterious - what about him? Could he be a phoenix? By the same token, Voldemort himself is extremely talented and powerful. Could he be an animagi as well? (M is derailed by images of a pitched battle between a snake and a mongoose...) Anyway, I guess I'm wondering where most people stand on the animagi idea - is it truly as rare as it seems, or are there more wandering about than we've so far seen? Millefiori From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 16:47:42 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:47:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Of Rats and Ron In-Reply-To: <3E027CB0.C24DB0F4@pacificpuma.com> References: <55223733268.20021219085918@earthlink.net> <3E027CB0.C24DB0F4@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <8237563203.20021220084742@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48598 Hi, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 6:13:04 PM, jazmyn wrote: >> Harry also pulls Crookshanks out by the end of his tail, >> when he tries to sneak into the boys dorm, instead of >> grabbing him the correct way. >> > So how many pets has Harry been allowed to have that he would know the > proper way to handle cats? I don't see the Dursley's having any cats. I brought this up as another example that JKR may not always portray the right way to handle an animal in her books, not to say that Harry was mean and cruel or should have known better ;) Though he might have picked up a thing or two during his time at Hogwarts, or being babysat by Mrs. Figgs, who had lots of cats :) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 18:14:00 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:14:00 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48599 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: > Steve wrote: > > EXPECT > > BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous trouble. > > Susanne said: > >>>Yes! > This may be Hermione's big mistake, and I don't understand > why she doesn't see the problems her little deal with Rita > can cause.<<< > > > me:BoBaFeTT > > I don't expect anything but good things from Rita. > > Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus ... ... ..... > Why would she risk her entire way of life for small-time revenge > like that? > > BoBaFeTT bboy_mn adds: Small-time revenge? I think not. Let's weigh the situation- On one hand we have the greatest story of the century and only Rita knows. Well, she the only one who knows who is likely to tell. * Voldemort has returned. * Dumbledore is associating and even aiding the most notorious criminal alive (excluding Voldemort), Sirius Black. * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. * Dumbledore and Fudge have had a falling out. * DUmbledore is marshalling the troops. * She knows Snape is on a secret mission on Dumbledore's orders. * She knows Barty Crouch Jr is alive and has been masquerading as Moody. * She knows Dumbledore wants to get rid of the Dementor and ally with the giants. * She knows Harry has named several promenent citizens as active Death Eaters. * She knows Cedric Diggory died in the Tri-Wizards Tournement. What she know that other's don't is that Voldemort killed him. Although, later, Dumbledore tells this to the students. * She know Harry TOLD Cedric to take the Tri-Wizard's Cup with him. * She knows Snape has the Dark Mark and how it works. * She knows Karkaroff has fled in fear of his life. * and more... Now, on the other hand- * people might find out she is an unregistered animagi. Which probably means she will be embarassed, will have to pay a fine, and will have to register. Plus, there is nothing to stop her from using her bug form to eavesdrop on people in the future. The greatest group of stories she could ever imagine vs. being found out as an animagi. These stories are so hot that when she writes them she probably have a whole case of Quick-Quotes Quills burst into flames. I stand firmly by what I said before - "EXPECT BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous trouble." Deadly serious trouble. Maybe it will be Rita's big mouth or fat pen that will be responsible for the death in the next book. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Fri Dec 20 12:23:38 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:23:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 Message-ID: <30.33bd3f57.2b3465ca@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48600 In a message dated 12/20/2002 7:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, renitentraven at hotmail.com writes: > I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be Hedwig > after J.K. Rowling stated in chat that Harry *may* get a new pet, but > she couldn't say more. > > The fan hint could be a device to throw us of the scent of a > catastrophic human death so we feel it the more keenly, along with > the characters. > Now that you mention it, Hedwig does sound like a possibility. I had forgotten that she had said anything about Harry getting a new pet. I hope not though, I like Hedwig. Think I'll keep rooting for it to be Colin Creevy or one of the lesser known children. Hope that doesn't sound bad. Putting an owl over people. But they're all fictional anyway. More than the death in book 5 I am beginning to wonder if the book will ever come out for us to read. Joy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Fri Dec 20 18:31:03 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:31:03 EST Subject: Things i don't understand Message-ID: <141.5ae8f6b.2b34bbe7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48601 Constance Vigilance asks; << 3 - GOF - Regarding Rita Skeeter, Hermione says "Give me 5 minutes in the library .." (paraphrased, I don't have my book) Presumably, she uses those 5 minutes to find out if Rita is listed as a registered animagus. Well, there is a big leap between understanding that Rita is a bug and finding her. So, did Hermione just happen to see a beetle flying by and it just happened to be the right one? How fortuitous is that? >> Not fortuitous at all. Rita is a *journalist*. She's just seen a major upset during the Triwizard tournement. Harry clearly was injured when he returned from who-knows-where (Fake!Moody half carried him off the field.) Rita buzzing up to stake out the windows of the hospital wing and evesdrop is practically a given. Hermione's sharp enough to figure that out. All she needed to do was check out any windos in the vicinity for suspicious-looking insects. -JOdel From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 18:41:16 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:41:16 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "uncmark" wrote: > > Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 > > Gretchen wrote: > > >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > > > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ... ... ... but who paid > > >for it? > > > I believe McGonagall paid for the broom herself, from her own > money. ..edited... bboy_mn adds: I believe she said she had to talk to Dumbledore about getting a broom for Harry. So I have always assumed that the broom was paid for and owned by the school, and was on loan to Harry until he graduated. -end this part- > > As for the goblins at Gringott's bank, I believe their primary > concern is with protecting the money in their vaults - nothing > else. bboy_mn continues to add: I believe the goblins are a deeply suspicious lot, and that they have a very strong (VERY STRONG) intuitive sense of when someone is being deceitful, devious, or just plain lying. I think they can look at a signature and have an intuitive sense of whether it's been forged. Can't prove any of this though. But it does make sense in light of the entire wizard world trusting their fortunes to creatures that are not the most friendly, and in their own way, somewhat devious. All they are concerned about is money; having it, making it, guarding it. It's not their job to catch criminals for the Ministry. It's not their job to monitor and report on people's private lives. Part of guarding this money is protecting the privacy of their customers. So, if A withdrawal occurred from Sirius's account that's nobodies business but his. -end this part- > > The same goes with Molly Weasley fetching money for Harry Potter out > of his vault while he's at the Quidditch World Cup. > > Diana bboy_mn concludes: Actually, Molly DIDN'T have Harry's expressed permission to enter his vault and take money. Harry didn't find out about it until after the fact. BUT she did have Harry's implied permission and her purpose in entering Harry vault and taking money was a legitimate act on his (Harry's) behalf. I think the goblins sense that Molly was a trustworthy and reliable person who was indeed acting on Harry behalf, and allowed he access to the vault. Although, I'm sure the monitored her very closely and kept an exact accounting of what she took. That's all for now. bboy_mn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 20 18:43:38 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:43:38 EST Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I ... Message-ID: <29.341c47d3.2b34beda@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48603 In a message dated 20/12/2002 11:47:24 Eastern Standard Time, mb1984 at prodigy.net writes: > Becoming an animagus is supposed to be quite difficult, but I think if three > unsupervised schoolchildren in one year can manage it, it can't possibly be > a talent as rare as only seven (or eleven) in a century Actually, when Sirius and Lupin are explaining MWP&P, Lupin says: "It took them the better part of three years to work out how to do it. Your father and Sirius were the cleverest students in the schooll, and lucky they were, because the Anamagus transformation can go horribly wrong- one reason the Ministry keeps a close watch on those attempting to do it. Peter neded all the help he could get from James and Sirius. Finally, in our fifth year, they managed it. ...." PoA Paperback edition, pg 354 So, they probably worked as diligently as HHR do when they are learning difficult spells-- especially in the restricted section of the library... Actually, I would be suprised if Harry if not R and H as well, learn the transformation--- keeping with tradition. ;) -Snuffles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 18:49:52 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:49:52 -0800 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> References: <13265703526.20021219203841@earthlink.net> <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <18844894218.20021220104952@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48604 Hi, Friday, December 20, 2002, 12:13:36 AM, BoBaFeTT wrote: > Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus and that's how she > gets her scoops. Why would she risk her entire way of life for > small-time revenge like that? She has a *huge* story on her hands, and if media work in similar ways in the WW as they do in the Muggle world, Rita could probably retire somewhere for good . She may not need to scoop out more, comparatively little stories, in the future. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 20 19:04:42 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:04:42 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: > * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. > That particular secret is no longer safe, no matter what Rita does. Pettigrew, alias Wormtail, knows all about it. He can tell Voldemort, if he hasn't already. Pippin From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 19:05:26 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:05:26 -0000 Subject: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "armillarygirl " wrote: > I've often wondered if the death of a Harry *fan* mighn't be Hedwig > ...edited... > > Lisa bboy_mn responds: Brilliant deduction. I bid you all, pause for a moment and ponder Harry and Hedwigs relationship. Harry is very much alone in this world. His only know relatives make him feel very unwelcome and very much out of place. Harry, at the closest deepest most intimate level, has no one; no one accept Hedwig. True, he has friends, but, as we all know, over the course of a lifetime, friends come and go. Hedwig is the only living thing on this earth that is Harry's alone. Hedwig is there summer and winter, in school and out. Hedwig is there late at night when Harry wakes feeling scared or lonely. Hedwig always listens and never judges. She gives him that special love and comfort that pet are so good at giving. In a sense, being the only living thing that truly belongs to Harry, Hedwig is his only family, his only constant, the only living thing that he can count on to alway be there with and for him; his friend, his companion, his confidant, his confessor. The death of Hedwig would be very hard indeed, it would be like Harry losing his only brother... er... I guess that would have to be sister. Hard to say if it's true, but I think it was a brilliant conclusion to reach. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 19:13:48 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:13:48 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999 " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve > " wrote: > > > * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. > > > > That particular secret is no longer safe, no matter what Rita > does. Pettigrew, alias Wormtail, knows all about it. He can tell > Voldemort, if he hasn't already. > > Pippin bboy_mn replies: Absolutely true; 100% agree. BUT... The problem isn't Voldemort/Death Eaters knowing and compromising his safety. The problem is that he is a notorious murderer, betrayer of the beloved Potters, and escaped criminal. Right now he is able to move through the world unimpeded as a dog. But if he secret become public knowledge, no black dog in the wizard world will be safe; big or small. Being an animagi dog is the only thing that allows him to function safely. If he loses that, then he loses a lot. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Dec 20 19:52:05 2002 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:52:05 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: <15926466.1039708474245.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, rvotaw at i... wrote: > I have a coupe of theories there, one being > that one Creevey brother dies in a way that either saves Harry or he thinks > he's saving Harry. I think if you are right, than Colin is the one, who turns evil and Dennis the one to die. Mainly because Dennis is to young to turn traitor. He is eleven now, that makes him 14 in book 7, if he is still alive. I know that for example Barty jr. was also a teenager, when he joined Voldemort, but 14 just seems to young in my opinion, especially for a muggle born. Colin on the other hand would be 17, this might fit. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Dec 20 19:56:44 2002 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:56:44 -0000 Subject: Which friend? In-Reply-To: <15926466.1039708474245.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, rvotaw at i... wrote: > I have a coupe of theories there, one being > that one Creevey brother dies in a way that either saves Harry or he thinks > he's saving Harry. I think if you are right, than Colin is the one, who turns evil and Dennis the one to die. Mainly because Dennis is to young to turn traitor. He is eleven now, that makes him 14 in book 7, if he is still alive. I know that for example Barty jr. was also a teenager, when he joined Voldemort, but 14 just seems to young in my opinion, especially for a muggle born. Colin on the other hand would be 17, this might fit. Hickengruendler From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 20 20:07:58 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:07:58 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48610 Steve bboy_mn said > > > * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. > > > > > Pippin said: > > That particular secret is no longer safe, no matter what Rita > > does. Pettigrew, alias Wormtail, knows all about it. He can tell Voldemort, if he hasn't already. > > > bboy_mn replies: > > Absolutely true; 100% agree. > > BUT... > > The problem isn't Voldemort/Death Eaters knowing and compromising hissafety. The problem is that he is a notorious murderer, betrayer of the beloved Potters, and escaped criminal. <> > Being an animagi dog is the only thing that allows him to function safely. If he loses that, then he loses a lot. > Exactly...so what's to keep Voldemort from owling an anonymous hot tip to the Daily Prophet, or Lucius Malfoy from feeding said information to the Ministry. Pippin From klingerji at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 19:05:00 2002 From: klingerji at yahoo.com (Jordan Klinger) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:05:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: <30.33bd3f57.2b3465ca@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021220190500.46421.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48611 > Now that you mention it, Hedwig does sound like a > possibility. I had > forgotten that she had said anything about Harry > getting a new pet. I hope > not though, I like Hedwig. Think I'll keep rooting > for it to be Colin Creevy > or one of the lesser known children. Hope that > doesn't sound bad. Putting > an owl over people. But they're all fictional > anyway. More than the death > in book 5 I am beginning to wonder if the book will > ever come out for us to > read. > > Joy Has anyone considered the possibility of Hedwig being an unregsitered animagi as well? I can not think of possibilities as to who he would be, but with all of the human characteristics that he exhibits, it is not out of the realm of possiblity. Jordan __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From rbroeker at hotmail.com Fri Dec 20 19:42:12 2002 From: rbroeker at hotmail.com (beccafran ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:42:12 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48612 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999 " > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve > > " wrote: > > > > > * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. > > > > > That particular secret is no longer safe, no matter what Rita > > does. Pettigrew, alias Wormtail, knows all about it. He can tell > > Voldemort, if he hasn't already. > > > > Pippin > > bboy_mn replies: > > The problem isn't Voldemort/Death Eaters knowing and compromising his > safety. The problem is that he is a notorious murderer, betrayer of > the beloved Potters, and escaped criminal. > This is a really good point. It shouldn't matter to Voldemort whether or not Sirius is an animagus, unless at some later date they decide to go after him (hmmm...) The group that Sirius has to worry about now is the MoM, and Fudge in particular (who's already shown he's only too happy to have the Dementors take care of an escaped prisoner). In this respect, Rita publishing what she knows can have a *huge* effect: The story appears in the Daily Prophet, Fudge and the Ministry look like fools, and they can now find Sirius and send him back to Azkaban or administer the kiss. BeccaFran From bess_va at lycos.com Fri Dec 20 19:44:08 2002 From: bess_va at lycos.com (bess_va2000 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:44:08 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48613 Wait! we don't know how much Rita knows because we don't know how long she was listening. We don't know *when* she arrived on the windowsill. If she arrived only seconds before H caught her, all she saw was a touching scene between Molly and Harry. If Rita arrived after Madam Pomfrey left to take care of Winky, Rita knows some part of Sirius' secrets, and she knows Dumbledore sends Sirius to contact a list of people, she knows all this has to do with Fudges "attitude", she knows Dumbledore sends Snape somewhere...but you see, there's a whole lot more to the story that she doesn't know because of *when* she might have landed in the infirmary. yours, Bess From bkb042 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 20:32:19 2002 From: bkb042 at yahoo.com (Brian ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:32:19 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48614 Perhaps the method used by Sirius to purchase the Firebolt, and Molly to puchase Harry's schoolthings were akin to a muggle cheque or letter of credit. If Hogwarts can issue quills bewitched with an anti-cheating spell, it doesn't require a great stretch of the imagination to think that WW shopowners, bankers, and accountants would not avail themselves of similar protection from unscrupulous customers. Perhaps Gringott's "cheque clearing department" is armed with a charmed rubber stamp that validates or denies such purchase orders, drafts, or withdrawal requests. That would help to explain how she managed to buy all of Harry's things, but........ What about Hermione? AFAIK, she doesn't have a vault of her own, and her parents had to exchange muggle money to buy her things in the past. Who picked up the tab for Hermione? BTW, I'm of the firm belief that Hermione is worm food by the end of OotP; I'd been saying it in the weekly chat for at least a month before Cindy started her poll. I didn't jump on her bandwagon; She jumped on mine! Happy Holidays to everyone! Brian From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 20:35:07 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:35:07 -0800 Subject: More animagi?Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: <20021220190500.46421.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20021220190500.46421.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6751209787.20021220123507@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48615 Hi, Friday, December 20, 2002, 11:05:00 AM, klingerji at yahoo.com wrote: > Has anyone considered the possibility of Hedwig being > an unregsitered animagi as well? It's always a possibilty, but I have to admit that I'd get quite annoyed if most of the animals in HP turn out to be wizards/witches. It would get boring and predictable, even if we don't know *who* the animals turns out to really be. By exposing Scabbers/PP, Sirius/Snuffles, Rita/Beetle and James/Stag, JKR has already made us look at most creatures suspiciously, and if Hedwig, Pig, Crookshanks, Mrs. Norris, Fang, Errol...all turn out to really be people, too... It'd just be a little tiresome, in a way. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From Silverdawn21 at juno.com Fri Dec 20 21:38:07 2002 From: Silverdawn21 at juno.com (silverdawn212000 ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:38:07 -0000 Subject: Colors-McGonagall-Harry's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48616 Hi, I'm new to the group, so I apologize if I am bringing up a topic that has been discussed before. I'm rereading the Harry Potter books, and I have noticed a lot of references to color. As everyone knows, scarlet and gold are the colors of gryffindor, and there are many references to these two colors: "He raised the wang amove his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework." p. 85 PS/SS 'Standing beside its burnished bronze doors wearing a uniform of scarlet and gold, was-- "Yeah, that's a goblin," said Hagrid p. 72 PS/SS (side note: Why *are* the goblins dressed in gryffindor colors?) In COS, Fawkes is described as red and gold as well. (207) So, my question is...why does McGonagall, the head of griffindor, wear emerald green? (PS/SS 113) She even writes in "emerald green" (PS/SS). Is it because she is evil? Also, what house was she in when she was at Hogwarts. Naturally, I assumed Gryffindor, but was she in SLytherin? Does anyone know? Also, why are Harry (and Lily)'s eyes green? Why not blue, hazel, or brown? Does JKR simply like green eyes, or is it a tie to Voldemort? Or, does green not necessarily signify anything? Hope I did okay with this post! SilverDawn From wynnde1 at aol.com Fri Dec 20 23:04:54 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:04:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wearing Green (was Colors-McGonagall-Harry's Eyes) Message-ID: <172.13a32cb2.2b34fc16@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48617 Silver Dawn wrote: >So, my question is...why does McGonagall, the head of griffindor, >wear emerald green? (PS/SS 113) She even writes in "emerald green" >(PS/SS). Is it because she is evil? Also, what house was she in >when she was at Hogwarts. Naturally, I assumed Gryffindor, but was >she in SLytherin? Does anyone know? Now me: Mwahhahahaha! There are those here who do belive that McGonagall is evil. For a look at that theory, start by reading post #s 39470, 38783, and 39495. Although I can't take credit for writing any of these posts (wish I could! ), I'm among those won't be at all surprised if Minerva turns out to be evil. HOWEVER . . . having said that, I don't believe that wearing green is a sign of being evil. Snape wears green on one occasion in canon (a Quidditch match, the one between Slytherin and Gryffindor in PoA, IIRC). This is hardly surprising, as he's Head of Slytherin House. Still, I *don't* believe that Snape is evil, nor do I believe that Slytherin House and all it's students and alumni can be considered evil (or even suspect) simply by virtue of being in Slytherin. Although much of what JKR has written about the House does seem to point in that direction, I really rebel against the notion that one of the four houses is simply "evil." I'm not even convinced yet that Salazar Slytherin himself was evil - I don't feel we yet have enough information about him in canon to make that sort of judgement. So, for me, the notion that Green=Slytherin=Evil does not work. But, for those who may not be satisfied by this, and belive that the Slytherins are, indeed, suspect, there is one other person who springs to my mind as wearing green in canon: Arthur Weasley is described as wearing "long green robes" when he comes out of the fireplace at the Dursley's house in Chapter Four of GoF. And, much as I love to speculate that nearly everybody *might* turn out to be evil, sweet, muggle-loving Arthur Weasley has *never* made it on my list! So, unless we are in for a *big* surprise regarding Arthur, I think it's safe to say that wearing green in the Potterverse is not automatically a sign of being evil. Regarding the question of why McGonagall seems to like green so much if she's not a) Evil or b) a Slytherin who ended up as Head of Gryffindor House: Okay, now here's a bit of what may turn out to be dodgy speculation - I've always thought that Minerva uses green ink because she has green eyes. I'm not aware of anywhere in canon which states this, but I make the assumption based on the fact that I remember reading something somewhere about Dumbledore using ink the same shade of blue as *his* eyes, in which case this could be a common thing to do in the WW. And a pretty nifty idea, IMO. HOWEVER - I've looked through the books and the HP Lexicon, and can find no mention of this at all, so I'm thinking it may be a bit of fanfiction contamination from the days when I was still reading it. In which case my speculation is, indeed, dodgy, although not necessarily untrue - just not proveable with the canon we have to date. In any case, if Minerva does have green eyes, she would probably find green a flattering colour for her to wear, which explains the green robes. Does anyone out there remember if there *is* anything in canon about the colour of Dumbledore's ink? :-) Wendy (Who is rather annoyed with herself over this Dumbledore/ink thing. She stopped reading fanfiction nearly a year ago precisely because she found herself having trouble remembering what was canon and what were merely clever things from fanfiction. - "What? I *remember* reading that Snape is Harry's real father!" - For something like this to slip in after all this time is disconcerting. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the fanfiction - some of it was fantastic! So for those out there who enjoy it, these comments are *not* meant to be disparaging or anti-fanfic. I just found it confusing to *me* - much as TCTTMNBN has compromised my ability to remember the real details from PS/SS, and now finds reading the book to be filled with surprises: "oh, that's right . . . Ron never did go into the Forbidden Forest in Book One!" ). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Dec 20 23:09:39 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:09:39 -0000 Subject: Green (and a note on Byron) (Was: Colors-McGonagall-Harry's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48618 SilverDawn wrote: > So, my question is...why does McGonagall, the head of griffindor, > wear emerald green? (PS/SS 113) She even writes in "emerald green" > (PS/SS). Is it because she is evil? Also, what house was she in > when she was at Hogwarts. Naturally, I assumed Gryffindor, but was > she in SLytherin? Does anyone know? Welcome to the list, SilverDawn. We have discussed a lot of this before, but we're always looking for new ideas. As to McGonagall -- there are advocates of Ever So Evil McGonagall (myself occasionally included ) who do see her fondness for green as suspicious, but unless we assume Harry and Lily are evil as well, then we should probably look for a more complicated symbolism for green. We don't know what house McGonagall was in, but most assume Gryffindor. I personally prefer to imagine that all Heads of House must have been members of the houses they head, but there's not much canon to back that up at the moment. > Also, why are Harry (and Lily)'s eyes green? Why not blue, hazel, or > brown? Does JKR simply like green eyes, or is it a tie to > Voldemort? Or, does green not necessarily signify anything? Green symbolizes a lot. >From the Online Symbolism Dictionary: http://www.umich.edu/~umfandsf/symbolismproject/symbolism.html/G/green .html "Green is a dualistic color. It can represent envy, evil, and trickery, and/or growth, renewal, and life, as lush vegetation. In Arthurian legend the green knight slew all who attempted to cross his bridge, until he was killed by Arthur. In this respect green can be seen as death's unbiased nature and the slaying of the naive." Envy, evil, trickery and unbiased slaying link it with Avada Kedavra and Lord Voldemort. But since green can also represent renewal, resurrection and love, this links it with Lily and her protection of Harry. Basically, green is a color that can go either way: it can symbolize life or death, decay or rebirth, sickness or regeneration. Green is associated with serpents too (as in Slytherin), and they can also represent good or evil, life or death, poison or healing (as with their use in the caduceus, which is also interesting as regards Snape). As the series develops, I suspect we'll see more good snakes (like the Brazilan boa constrictor) and bad ones (like Nagini), and more complicated associations with Slytherin house. A lot of list members have examined the books use of red and green symbolism and noted how it relates to Alchemy. Caroline did a great analysis of green in support of the theory Stoned!Harry, which speculates that Harry is a living embodiment of the Philosopher's Stone: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38542 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39473 Caroline brilliantly points out that Green's dualism makes it the color of *choices,* and hence, the major theme of the series. Many list members have indeed speculated that Harry might have descended from Slytherin on his mother's side, and the green eyes indicate that. Personally, I don't think it's necessary that they be related, but simply that good and evil are symbolically linked in the complicated death/renewal/resurrection way that green represents. Furthermore, Harry doesn't need to be related to Voldemort in order to recognize a few similarities and that he can choose to act like LV or choose not to. ----- I wanted to say more on the Snape as Byronic Hero thread, but what I had to say started getting really off-topic. I'm working on a post for OT-Chatter which replies to some posts from here, so if anyone would like to talk about Byronic Heroes in general with me, please check there later tonight. ~Porphyria From fotouba at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 21:54:03 2002 From: fotouba at yahoo.com (fotouba ) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:54:03 -0000 Subject: More animagi?Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: <6751209787.20021220123507@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48619 Hi, Well I read your mail about Hedwig and I personaly think that you shouldn't worry about that. Although I believe that it is most unlike for Hedwig to be an animagus, even if she finaly turns to be one then Rowling will have a damn good explanation for that. If something like that happens then JKR will definitely justify such an action, cause otherwise she will understand that it will seem a little bit odd to her readers. So have a little faith in her, and I hope that she won't let you down. Of course I wouldn't be so sure about anything (Hedwig not being an animagus) cause after all, it is JKR we are talking about (the witch of surprises). "fotouba" From sholden at flash.net Fri Dec 20 23:23:21 2002 From: sholden at flash.net (SHolden) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:23:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48620 *sigh* Sorry in the lateness of this message, 99 more messages to go through....... From: samnjodie [mailto:englishatjodie at hotmail.com] I'm new and I've just read over the summary of the debate i.e. who will end up with whom. Frankly, I think it's obvious who Harry will end up with, or at least who he wants to end up with (Cho). I happen to disagree here. Cho is just a crush at the moment. Plus, Cho was Cedric's girlfriend. Harry definitely won't be able to get that out of his mind whenever he's with Cho. He'll remember Cedric, then his recent encounter with Voldemort, it'll just be too painful for him. From: samnjodie [mailto:englishatjodie at hotmail.com] I think, though, that the two of them are more like a brother and a sister to one another then they are like a couple. They are too comfortable with one another, and with their feelings for one another. It could be argued that their lack of insecurity is a point towards a relationship them, but anyone posing that argument would be forgetting what it's like to be a teenager. By the end of the goblet of fire they are each just finishing puberty. Okay, now I really disagree with this. Not because I'm an H/Hr, but because of the fact that you cannot complete puberty in just one or two years. JKR has said herself (I don't know the actual quote so I'm just paraphrasing here before anyone jumps on me) that horomones will be in overdrive in OotP. IMO, I see R/Hr as more like sister and brother. Both Ron and Hermione are mean to each other and neither care if the other gets hurt, only people I know that are like this are siblings. With siblings, they can be as mean as they want to be to the other sibling in private because deep down they know that the other sibling doesn't mean it. Yet, at the same time defend to them death in public. What amazes me is that a lot of R/Hr's, sorry to be generalizing, tend to expect Harry to exhibit the same actions that Ron has shown when he likes a girl. Ron is the jealous type, so we can expect him to react that way. Harry is definitely not the jealous type, so why expect him to have the same actions like Ron. Sara [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sholden at flash.net Fri Dec 20 23:23:24 2002 From: sholden at flash.net (SHolden) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:23:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney's first prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48621 From: Joanne Sammer [mailto:sammer at webspan.net] I am not sure this is it, but this is what I caught on my last reading of PoA... Ch. 11 Christmas lunch when Trelawney comes to join the table. "Sibyll, this is a pleasant surprise," said Dumbledore, STANDING UP. (my emphasis) further down... "Never forget that when thirteen dine together, THE FIRST TO RISE will be the first to die!" Trelawney had not actually joined them at that point, so I am not sure if Dumbledore standing up counts as there were still only 12 actually dining. But I was struck by this pointed reference to Dumbledore standing up. There is no mention of him standing up when Ron and Harry join them. Me: I saw more along the lines that if there are thirteen people dining, then the first of those to rise would be the first to die. Harry & Ron were with first ones to get up out of the thirteen people. The only one I saw that was nervous or laughing about it was Ron. If Ron and Harry did rise at exactly the same time, then why would Ron need to be laughing it off. Sara [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 23:55:22 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:55:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18663227095.20021220155522@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48622 Hi, Friday, December 20, 2002, 3:23:21 PM, SHolden wrote: > Harry is definitely not the jealous type, so why expect him to have > the same > actions like Ron. Well, maybe not *as* jealous, but he's certainly shown jealousy when seeing Cedric and Cho together. One example from GoF: ********* Completely forgetting about dinner, he walked slowly back up to Gryffindor Tower, Cho's voice echoing in his ears with every step he took. "Cedric - Cedric Diggory." He had been starting to quite like Cedric - prepared to overlook the fact that he had once beaten him at Quidditch, and was handsome, and popular, and nearly everyone's favorite champion. Now he suddenly realized that Cedric was in fact a useless pretty boy who didn't have enough brains to fill an eggcup. *********** and another: ************** Harry tried not to watch Cho and Cedric too much; it gave him a strong desire to kick something. ********** Harry doesn't broadcast his jealousy all over the place, like Ron, but he feels it, just the same. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Dec 21 00:02:56 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:02:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney's first prediction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7863680552.20021220160256@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48623 Hi, Friday, December 20, 2002, 3:23:24 PM, SHolden wrote: > Me: I saw more along the lines that if there are thirteen people > dining, > then the first of those to rise would be the first to die. I saw this not as a *prediction*, but as a common superstition. The "Friday the 13th" kind. The other adults' reactions didn't seem to imply that anyone else was taking this too seriously. >From PoA: ************** I dare not, Headmaster! If I join the table, we shall be thirteen! Nothing could be more unlucky! Never forget that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die!" "We'll risk it, Sibyll," said Professor McGonagall inpatiendy. "Do sit down, the turkey's getting stone cold." ************** -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 01:22:56 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:22:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filk: She'll Be Flying O'er the Mountain Message-ID: <20021221012256.81084.qmail@web20305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48624 This little ditty was inspired by an offlist musing about a filk, or possibly many filks, written to the tune of "She'll be Coming Round the Mountain." I'm afraid the muser was being facetious and was probably trying to imagine the worst possible filk vehicle, but musers may unexpectedly find themselves Muses, and, I hope, amused as well. Besides, Madame Maxime doesn't get enough filks in her honor. So, grab your banjos, everyone, and chime in with an additional verse or two. It's folk music! "She'll Be Flying O'er the Mountain" She'll be flying o'er the mountain when she comes, She'll be flying o'er the mountain when she comes, All her students will be frozen But they're lucky to've been chosen She'll be flying o'er the mountain when she comes. She'll be driving drunken horses when she comes, She'll be driving drunken horses when she comes, She'll be driving drunken horses, They'll be Hagrid's pals, of courses, She'll be driving drunken horses when she comes. Oh, we'll all be out to meet her when she comes, Oh, we'll all be out to meet her when she comes, We'll all be so glad to meet her, Especially Rita Skeeter, Oh, we'll all be out to meet her when she comes. We'll be serving French coosine when she comes, We'll be serving French coosine when she comes, If a veela you would woo, You must offer seafood stew, So we'll broaden our men-u when she comes. She'll be speaking wiz an accent when she comes, She'll be speaking wiz an accent when she comes, Oh, ze accent ees so charming Zat 'Arry she can't be 'arming Or is Jo being disarming? when she comes. Amy Z ===== It's better than Malfoy's . . . It's NIMBUS 2003 Florida, July 17-20, 2003 Register at http://www.hp2003.org/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From debmclain at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 02:28:32 2002 From: debmclain at yahoo.com (Debbie McLain ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 02:28:32 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ship: H/H vs. R/H Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48625 From: samnjodie I'm new and I've just read over the summary of the debate i.e. who will end up with whom. Frankly, I think it's obvious who Harry will end up with, or at least who he wants to end up with (Cho). Sara said: I happen to disagree here. Cho is just a crush at the moment. Plus, Cho was Cedric's girlfriend. Harry definitely won't be able to get that out of his mind whenever he's with Cho. He'll remember Cedric, then his recent encounter with Voldemort, it'll just be too painful for him. Now Me: Actually, I feel it will be Cho who will not want to be with Harry. Everytime she's with him, she'll see him as the guy who let Cedric die. What relationship can be built on that? Again, I think Cho is just Harry's first crush. I think someone new will come in. I can't believe I'm saying this (because I've been rallying saying it's not going to happen) but it might be Ginny. JK has said she'll be more involved in the upcoming novels. I keep hoping Harry will find someone in the Muggle world, fall in love, and then find out in book 7 that, unbeknownest to her, she's really a seer (or something like that), which is why she never got an invit to Hogwarts (no seer classes). Anyway, I think Cho is going to be less and less in the following books. -Debbie From Lynx412 at aol.com Sat Dec 21 03:10:13 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:10:13 EST Subject: Harry's New Pet... Message-ID: <2b.3408ee6e.2b353595@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48626 In a message dated 12/20/02 8:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM writes: > Either way Harry doesn't need to lose Hedwig in order to get a new > pet - I'm sure he's quite capable of looking after 2 pets - although > what the Dursleys would think of another pet (especially if it was > Fang - judgng by Petunias reactions to Magres dog) is another thing > ;-) > Now I, on the other hand, expect Harry to aquire a large black stray dog... And I can't wait for Aunt Petunia's reaction...after all, she doesn't like animals. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rcmcneil at alltel.net Sat Dec 21 03:05:15 2002 From: rcmcneil at alltel.net (Robin ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 03:05:15 -0000 Subject: Wearing Green (was Colors-McGonagall-Harry's Eyes) In-Reply-To: <172.13a32cb2.2b34fc16@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48627 Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I've only been lurking for about a week now. I've followed this thread back a ways and haven't found anything. SO, here goes....Has it been mentioned that Harry's dress robes are green? Mrs Weasley bought them because she thought they would complement his eyes. Also, it may be possible (since Minvera is obviously Scottish), that green is the primary color of her clan's tartan. ~Robin From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 03:23:08 2002 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:23:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney's first prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021221032308.3355.qmail@web40513.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48628 SHolden wrote: I am not sure this is it, but this is what I caught on my last reading of PoA... Ch. 11 Christmas lunch when Trelawney comes to join the table. "Sibyll, this is a pleasant surprise," said Dumbledore, STANDING UP. (my emphasis) further down... "Never forget that when thirteen dine together, THE FIRST TO RISE will be the first to die!" Trelawney had not actually joined them at that point, so I am not sure if Dumbledore standing up counts as there were still only 12 actually dining. But I was struck by this pointed reference to Dumbledore standing up. There is no mention of him standing up when Ron and Harry join them. Me: I think that since Trelawney wasn't actually sitting down yet, ther weren't 13 people at the table, the superstition thing doesn't really apply. However, if it does apply, and Dumbledore, according to it, is the first to die, it's not that strange. He is, after all, considerably older than anyone else present. Maria, who feels rather like Hermione now that her exam results are in. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chthonicdancer at hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 05:32:54 2002 From: chthonicdancer at hotmail.com (chthonia9 ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 05:32:54 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic, Muggle Magic and Character Crushes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48629 Another delayed post, I'm afraid... Dicussing spellcasting sans wand Melpomene wrote (48026): [snip] > first you have to learn the spells, the right > spells, where and when to use them, and all that. > Then you have to learn to concentrate your energy > on performing the spell itself. It also seems that > there is a certain amount of technique required > in the actual "wand waving". So, you'd have to > learn how to hold the wand (think chopsticks?) > and whether you swish and flick with the fingers, > wrist or entire arm. Eventually I'd imagine you'd > learn to channel the energy into the spell without > having to vocalize the incantation. Aikido training (and probably other martial arts, though I don't know to comment) springs to mind ? at first there is a lot of emphasis on big, obvious movements as you learn what the correct move and energy and focus feels like, then later when you get the feel of it the movements can be much more subtle and yet much more powerful. Spell casting skill could develop in a similar way. Alina wrote (post 48036), in response to Jazmyn's posts about the WW perception of muggle `magic': > The books were created to picture "wave a magic > wand" type of magic, and that does only exist in > fairy tales. As such it will always "win" in > comparison to religious magic of the real world. [snip] > perhaps what we have here is a mix-up due to > terminology. Religious magic and magic in HP books > are obviously not the same magic, but because we > use the same word, such conflicts may arise. Thanks for raising this one ? I find the relationship of `Muggle magic' to `WW magic' really interesting. It does strike me that a fundamental difference between religious magic and HP magic is that the `techniques' of religious magic are much more to do with honing *perception*, learning to be more aware of the world around and perhaps having a sort of power by being in the `right place'/flow (my view only, expressed [too briefly] with no intent to offend or to speak for anyone's religious beliefs). Ursula LeGuin explores the difference in her book Tehanu, portraying a wizard who has lost his power to cast spells but retains `perceptive power'. I have a feeling that magic in the WW carries the same potential for losing awareness as technology does in the muggle world ? there is a focus on *DOING* rather than *SEEING* or *BEING*. But maybe that's because JKR has focused on Gryffindors and Slytherins; I'd have expected a Ravenclaw to be more interested in perception, though perhaps they would be too head-based. ...and on the subject of religion, Shane wrote (post 48141) > Of course, if religion is brought up (and I doubt it > will be) in canon, isn't it possible that some > of our major religous figures could be in fact > wizards? Miraculous powers, anyone... I'm with you on that one. Strikes me that the discipline and non- mundane focus of the religious life might well enhance any latent (HP- )magical ability. I never really thought about it, but the religious figures never struck me as being out of place. But then I was introduced to fantasy literature through Katherine Kurtz... I'm interested that you think that religion won't be brought up, though. Given that the central Bad Guy is on a quest for immortality, I hope we'll get an idea at least of the Wizarding World's attitude to death and what comes afterwards. Acire wrote (post 48033) > But does anyone find it interesting that Lupin and > Snape are usually referred to as 'Lupin' and 'Snape', > while Sirius is referred to as 'Sirius'? I think that is largely because we are shown these characters through the eyes of Harry and his friends ? Lupin and Snape were teachers so their first names aren't going to be familiar, so we're accustomed to thinking of their surnames. Sirius, on the other hand, was `Sirius Black' the evil escaped convict ? using both names is consistent with the way criminals tend to be referred to (on the BBC, anyhow) ? no title, first name, last name. Plus JKR was holding up that humungous `black dog' clue (which I completely missed ;) Cassie (I think) wrote (post 48047) > Of course I have to mention my love for Lucius Malfoy > and Professor Quirrell...Why do I love them, you ask? > Five words: Jason Isaacs and Ian Hart *ducks flying > blender* I know...bringing the movies into this=bad thing, > I know. But it's true. Had it not been for those actors I > would've never given the characters a second thought Likewise ? for me, watching the CoS film was to experience a slowly dawning awareness that Lucius had several attributes which I would normally expect to find, erm, intriguing. Going back to the books, it was all (well, mostly ;) there, but it took seeing the interactions through my eyes rather than Harry's to realise that. I'd read the books fairly `straight' ? Draco I thought of as an unpleasant bully and his Dad an older, nastier version of the same. It's kind of disturbing to find oneself attracted to a character with no redeeming characteristics ? at least you Snapefans out there can have some solace in his underlying heroism! It's an odd sort of attraction though; it's not as if I'm fantasising about meeting him, more that he's stuck in the back of my head somewhere. I was really struck by the Jungian theory expressed recently. Lucius in the books is so one-dimensional, and appears so little that he seems to me to be archetypal, unsullied by human complications. Personally, I don't need Snape to carry my inner greasy unkemptness or impatience with kids (I can do that fine on my own :), but the idea of being able to live without (emotional) approval, of not compromising myself to be `nice' and getting away with it ? THAT appeals. (Of course, with Voldemort back that particular source of appeal may wear off rather quickly;) The irony is that in real life that sneering dismissal of people is *exactly* the thing that most makes me see red ? perhaps it's a question of hating what one most fears in oneself... Oh, and speaking of Lucius, Catlady wrote (48363): > Surely Lucius regards his son (who can be replaced, > maybe even with the same mother) as MORE dispensable > than the Dark Lord's favor. Debatable ? depends how in thrall/in terror he is. I wasn't meaning to say that he *definitely wouldn't* offer up the sacrificial ferret, more that at that point he wouldn't *enjoy* doing it, and would have no reason to be proactive about doing it. And on that note... I won't have net access for a few weeks so this will be my last post for a wee while. Thanks to everyone for the rich exchange of ideas, and have a great midwinter festival! Chthonia From catlady at wicca.net Sat Dec 21 07:17:21 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:17:21 -0000 Subject: Karkaroff/Owl Tracking/Wands/CU@Work/resisting Imperius/Animagi/blackmail Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48630 Constance Vigilance: << In his first power grab, was his goal to start with domination over Britain, or did he start with world domination as his first step? The cause of my puzzlement is the inclusion of Karkaroff in the Death Eaters. Either he happened to be in Britain during the first recruiting round, or V-M had already expanded. What does everyone think? >> I have no evidence, but I am convinced that Voldemort started his ambitions with Britain and had not yet gotten any further. Therefore, I am certain that Karkaroff was already in Britain when recruited. Suzanne Chiles: << I've always had the belief that Karkaroff was a student at Hogwarts as Voldemort was first rising to power and that Karkaroff, who I would bet was in Slytherin, eagerly embraced Voldemort. Alas, I can't cite any canon to support this belief. >> It seems to me that you are suggesting that Karkaroff is roughly the same age as Snape, Black, Lupin and Pettigrew; they were students when Voldemort first got into the headliness. I believe that Karkaroff is too old to have been in school with them. Evidence: when he appears in GoF, his goatee is white. There was a suggestion recently that Karkaroff was a *teacher* at Hogwarts at that time, maybe even Head of Slytherin house and using that position to recruit young Slytherins to join the Death Eaters. Ashfae: << if owls can track down any wizard, the Ministry doesn't just send an owl with a letter to Sirius Black, and then trace the owl. >> I believe that post owls can track down any addressee, even a Muggle, but mere wizards cannot trace post owls. I believe that post owls fly up, move to another dimension where non-owls cannot follow, travel extra-fast by use of that dimension, come out of it, and fly down to the recipient. So someone watching the mountainside behind Hogsmeade might notice that owls frequently went to one particular cave, but the person who sent the owl wouldn't know where it had gone. Unfortunately, the long amount of time that canon says it takes owls to carry post to Sirius in his warm island hiding place or even to Hermione on holiday in France means that the special owl dimension isn't all that fast. Susanne: << if you have two wands, made out of the same kind of wood and with the same type of core, are they interchangeable or are they still somehow individual? >> I have a very strong feeling that the resonance of the wand is not much affected by the kind of wood. I believe that of two willow and unicorn tail hair wands, one of them may resemble a particular maple and unicorn tail hair wand much more than it resembles the other willow wand. I have no canon for this, and no canon for my other opinion that the wands have decorative carving. Jazmyn: << then there might in fact be some wands that 'get along well' with more then one wizard and some 'temperamental' wands that might only work well for one or two people. (snip) In fact, some might find more then one that feels right and have to pick among them and others might have to search a while to find one that is 'right'. >> This is a forbidden I AGREE post! << However, what happens to all those wands whose owners died? Its quite posible that another person might find an old, used wand to be their 'match'? One wonders about 2nd hand wand shops in Knockturn Alley? >> There are 2nd hand wands for sale in DIAGON Alley; CoS says: "The bag of gold, silver, and bronze jangling cheerfully in Harry's pocket was clamoring to be spent, so he bought three large strawberry-and- peanut-butter ice creams, which they slurped happily as they wandered up the alley, examining the fascinating shop windows. ... and in a tiny junk shop full of broken wands, lopsided brass scales, and old cloaks covered in potion stains they found Percy, deeply immersed in a small and deeply boring book called Prefects Who Gained Power." I'm not sure if the broken wands being for sale in a junktique shoppe contradicts my theory that perhaps wizards and witches who die are buried/cremated WITH their wands ... Carol Bainbridge: << I've never seen any indication that Lucius has a job let alone a job at the MOM. >> I am certain that Lucius would never do anything so vulgar as have a *job*. I assumed that "I'll see you at work" meant dropping in at *Arthur's* work. Phyllis: << What confuses me is that Harry, the only student who can withstand the curse, seems to do so innately. The "voice in the back of his brain" tells him not to obey Fake!Moody's commands. Yet Fake!Moody talks about "teaching" the students to fight the Imperius curse, and he assigns them reading on resisting the curse. >> So Harry is a 'natural' at resisting Imperius, just as he is a 'natural' at flying broomstick and catching Snitch, things that other people take lessons to learn. Ani: << (I'm of the belief that the form does reflect some aspect of the person, whether or not that's supported in canon) >> That *is* canon, in the form of two JKR interviews. JKR has confirmed that the Animagus doesn't get to choose his/her animal form, but instead the animal form is a reflection of his/her personality. http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2000_Live_Chat_Americ a_Online.htm Q: Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? JKR: Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm Q: If you were Animagus, what kind of animal would you be? A: I'd like to be an otter -- that's my favourite animal. It would be depressing if I turned out to be a slug or something. I want to know, what happens if a person who has become an Animagus goes over the whole training again, from scratch, will heesh get another animal form? Can a person who is a werewolf become an Animagus? with an animal form other than wolf? Can a werewolf who is an Animagus with an animal form other than wolf avoid turning into a wolf monster at Full Moon by turning into hiser animal before the moment? Julia McCallum: << Maybe she thinks Hermione will let out that her little animagus secret if she (Rita) writes anymore stories about Harry and Co? I don't see Hermione actually stooping to blackmail, but Rita may not realize that. >> Having seen Hermione first steal the ingredients for Polyjuice Potion and then *drug* Crabbe and Goyle unconscious, I *can* see her also 'stooping' to blackmail. Everyone talks about Hermione being such a Ravenclaw; no one mentions that she's also rather much of a Slytherin. From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 07:35:28 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:35:28 -0000 Subject: wizard/muggle relations: The Dark Side Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48631 We know from GOF that Memory charms, which are constantly placed on muggles who have seen something they should not have, can damage a person's mind. However, all the wizards seem to put them on muggles whenever they see something magical. To me, that seems a sign of a disturbing development, all wizards see muggles as non-people, the worse ones will think of them as toys. It could be just me, but I suspect that Draco had a quiet respect - not liking - for hermione. However, some of the 'good' wizards do not hesitate at possibly inflicting permerment harm on Muggles. What an Irony; the 'bad' wizards may respect muggles and muggle-born more then the 'good' ones. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From englishatjodie at hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 04:51:32 2002 From: englishatjodie at hotmail.com (samnjodie ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 04:51:32 -0000 Subject: Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48632 I said: >>>I'm new and I've just read over the summary of the debate i.e. who will end up with whom. Frankly, I think it's obvious who Harry will end up with, or at least who he wants to end up with (Cho).<<< Sara said: >>>I happen to disagree here. Cho is just a crush at the moment. Plus, Cho was Cedric's girlfriend. Harry definitely won't be able to get that out of his mind whenever he's with Cho. He'll remember Cedric, then his recent encounter with Voldemort, it'll just be too painful for him.<<< Debbie said: >>>>Actually, I feel it will be Cho who will not want to be with Harry. Everytime she's with him, she'll see him as the guy who let Cedric die. What relationship can be built on that? Again, I think Cho is just Harry's first crush. I think someone new will come in. I can't believe I'm saying this (because I've been rallying saying it's not going to happen) but it might be Ginny....<<<< Just to clarify: I'm not making any predictions in regards to whether or not Harry and Cho will end up together - it could go anyway with those two, seeing as their relationship is still *this close* to not existing at all - and what happened with Cedric will (or would) of course be a contributing factor. I'm just saying that, at the moment anyway, Cho is who he wants to end up with; if he had to choose, right now, between having hermione as a girlfriend or having Cho as a girlfriend, he would choose Cho. Not a second of thought. I brought her up only as evidence of his lack of any sexual interest in Hermione. Another point I'd like to add in opposition to Harry ending up with Hermione: The books are from Harry's point of view. Everything of significance that he thinks and feels is revealed to us. If he had any feelings for Hermione, we would know. Harry isn't aware that his thoughts are being read by millions of people - and if he were interested in Hermione, at all, we would've been a party to his thoughts on it. Also; When him and Ron were fighting, and Harry was spending all that time alone with Hermione, he wasn't as happy about it as he would've been if he had a romantic interest in her. In fact, all he could think about when he was with her was how much less he enjoyed being with her then he enjoyed being with Ron. If he had any feelings for hermione, he would've been glad to be rid of Ron; at least, while he was with Hermione. eudaemonia_splinched wrote: >>>>[snip] as much as I'd like to believe Harry will end up with the one who he wants to end up with, at this point it's hard to see how he will get together with Cho [snip]<<<< Oh, I wasn't saying that he would end up with Cho - I just brought her up as evidence of his lack of feelings for Hermione. I think you're absolutely right. Thanks! Jodie :) From rshamim at princeton.edu Sat Dec 21 08:18:08 2002 From: rshamim at princeton.edu (Rehan Shamim ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:18:08 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore know that Fake Moody = Crouch? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48633 Hello everyone, After lurking on this list for six (yes, six!) months, I have finally decided that the time was right for me to make my first post. Yessss!!!! My question is whether Dumbledore knew immediately that Fake Moody was actually Barty Crouch, Jr. after he stormed into the office and stunned him. He recognizes that this man isn't really Alastor Moody, as he tells Harry that the real Moody would have never taken him out of Dumbledore's sight. However, he also seems to immediately realize that this man is Crouch Jr. Soon after stunning him, he gives the following instructions to Snape: "Severus, please fetch me the strongest Truth Potion you possess, and then go down to the kitchens and bring up the House-Elf called Winky." (GoF, Chapter 35, "Veritaserum," Page 680 of original US Edition) I think it is pretty obvious that Dumbledore would not send for Winky if the impostor was just some random DE. At the point that he sent for Winky, he must have known that it was Crouch. This means one of two things. Choice A: Dumbledore knew the whole year that Crouch had infiltrated Hogwarts, although he may not have known that he was disguised as Moody. For example, he may have thought that he was posing as a student or one of the people there specially for the Triwizard Tournament (like Bagman or someone). Once he figured that the impostor was going around as Moody, he captured him, already knowing that it was really Crouch. Choice B: Dumbledore did not know there was a spy at Hogwarts. He may have been suspicious of some people, but not to the point where he would do anything about it. After the Tournament, when Moody takes Harry away, he realizes that Moody is the traitor. In the five or ten minutes between his realization that Moody is the traitor and his Stupefy!ing of Moody, Dumbledore makes a few conclusions. First, he believes that this man isn't the real Alastor Moody. Probably a safe assumption, as Dumbledore knows that the real Moody would never directly disobey him in such an important time. Second, he figures that the spy is none other than Barty Crouch. How does he come up with this idea? Is he really that sharp that he could accurately predict that the man lying at his feet was a DE who had supposedly been dead for quite some time? Now, I am pretty sure that Dumbledore wouldn't let an unrepentant DE roam the castle, so in my opinion, Choice A is pretty much out. If any of you would like to disagree, then please do so. The question, then, that still remains is how exactly did Dumbledore come up with the idea of it being Crouch so quickly? What could he have known beforehand that would lead him to this assumption? Please, try to answer this, as I am totally confuzzled! Rehan (a guys' name, for any of you who are unsure :-) ) From sushi at societyhappens.com Sat Dec 21 08:04:56 2002 From: sushi at societyhappens.com (Sushi) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 02:04:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] wizard/muggle relations: The Dark Side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021221014754.025c9600@mail.societyhappens.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48634 >It could be just me, but I suspect that Draco had a quiet respect - not >liking - for hermione. However, some of the 'good' wizards do not >hesitate at possibly inflicting permerment harm on Muggles. What an >Irony; the 'bad' wizards may respect muggles and muggle-born more then the >'good' ones. You mean respect through fear? I'd like to know where you get your suspicions of Draco's respect for Hermione, but I can see where this sort of thinking would come from. Take Voldemort. Based on CoS, set during '92-'93, he attended Hogwarts from about 1938 to about 1945. Given that he was shuffled between the wizarding and Muggle worlds (school and summers), he would have seen what Muggles are capable of (via news reports, possibly newsreels if the orphanage had access to any, the Blitz, rationing, the general civilian horrors of WWII). Let's face it, humans are more than capable of doing some nasty things to each other. While a pure-blood wizard would be at least somewhat isolated from the direct impact of that sort of thing and raised with, presumably, a different basic moral code to what a Muggle would be given (that's a can of worms in itself), a Muggle-born or a half-blood would be exposed to, well, the nastiness that can ensue without the threat of things like Veritaserum and dementors. In Voldemort's case, this is a double-edged sword: it could have influenced him and made him more creative in his view (I hesitate to say "crueler" as I have no doubts a pure-blood can be a nasty SOB); at the same time, it might have instilled a more realistic view of what Muggles are capable of doing should they ever find out about the wizarding world. If that sort of attitude is instilled, especially in the Death Eaters' children, it would provide a painfully fertile breeding ground for fear, bigotry, and intolerance of anything Muggle via a sense of self-preservation. Comparing HP canon with mythology about witchcraft (not ignoring all those people who say that the books are evil), it's easy to see how prejudice in this case could go both ways. Despite its power, the wizarding world is a fragile thing. When the numbers are 50,000 to one, a wand isn't going to be very adequate protection. Oh, yeah, I'm new around here. :) Haven't had much time to read lately (the Hellidays are upon me, and I want to go hide), but I'm enjoying what I've seen so far. I so dearly, dearly hope I'll have time to get to my back emails. *grin* Sushi, Snape fanatic and Voldemort addict [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Dec 21 08:01:09 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 03:01:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] wizard/muggle relations: The Dark Side Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48635 In a message dated 21/12/2002 02:38:46 Eastern Standard Time, christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com writes: > We know from GOF that Memory charms, which are constantly placed on muggles > who have seen something they should not have, can damage a person's mind. > However, all the wizards seem to put them on muggles whenever they see > something magical. To me, that seems a sign of a disturbing development, > all wizards see muggles as non-people, the worse ones will think of them as > toys. > > It could be just me, but I suspect that Draco had a quiet respect - not > liking - for hermione. However, some of the 'good' wizards do not hesitate > at possibly inflicting permerment harm on Muggles. What an Irony; the > 'bad' wizards may respect muggles and muggle-born more then the 'good' ones Actually, my take on the memory charms in GoF was that they were only detrimental to a person when they were broken... Voldemort when speaking to the death eaters said that after he was done extracting all of the memories from Bertha Jorkins that she was not of any use to him as a body to posess... I took this as a meaning that when a strong memory charm is placed on a person and then forciably broken, it is detrimental, but the charms, themselves, are quite safe memory modifications. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bobafett at harbornet.com Sat Dec 21 06:48:34 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:48:34 -0800 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand References: Message-ID: <000c01c2a8bc$fe14f6e0$5bedaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48636 From: Julia McCallum BoBaFeTT: > Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus and that's how she gets her scoops. Why would she risk her entire way of life for small- time revenge like that? > > BoBaFeTT Julia: >Maybe she thinks Hermione will let out that her >little animagus >secret if she (Rita) writes anymore stories about >Harry and Co? I >don't see Hermione actually stooping to blackmail, >but Rita may not >realize that. >Julia response: Why wouldn't she blackmail her? She did by the way kidnap her while she was in her bug form and is holding her prisoner for a few weeks to teach her a lesson. BoBaFeTT From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 09:19:11 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:19:11 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Dumbledore know that Fake Moody = Crouch? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48637 I think that its choice B, as dumbledore appears to have been horififyingly negilent if he knew who the spy was. Dumbledore was present ar Crouch Jnr.'s trial, so he might have recognised him from that. Or he thought it was Crouch Snr. because he looked older. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 09:21:22 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:21:22 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] wizard/muggle relations: The Dark Side References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48638 srsiriusblack at aol.com:Actually, my take on the memory charms in GoF was that they were only detrimental to a person when they were broken..." Me: Sorry to contridict you, but Crouch Jnr specifically says that Beatha's mind was damaged by his farther's curse. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sholden at flash.net Fri Dec 20 23:36:44 2002 From: sholden at flash.net (SHolden) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:36:44 -0600 Subject: Rita Skeeter's BIG Scoop! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48639 BeccaFran wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999 " > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve > > " wrote: > > > > > * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. > > > > > That particular secret is no longer safe, no matter what Rita > > does. Pettigrew, alias Wormtail, knows all about it. He can tell > > Voldemort, if he hasn't already. > > > > Pippin > > bboy_mn replies: > > The problem isn't Voldemort/Death Eaters knowing and compromising his > safety. The problem is that he is a notorious murderer, betrayer of > the beloved Potters, and escaped criminal. > BeccaFran : "The group that Sirius has to worry about now is the MoM, and Fudge in particular (who's already shown he's only too happy to have the Dementors take care of an escaped prisoner). In this respect, Rita publishing what she knows can have a *huge* effect: The story appears in the Daily Prophet, Fudge and the Ministry look like fools, and they can now find Sirius and send him back to Azkaban or administer the kiss." Me: All *very* true. But wouldn't Rita also question why Ron, Hermione, & Harry stated that Sirius was innocent, we know that she heard that. Or am I giving Rita too much credit as a good reporter instead of a sleazy journalist? Sara [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sat Dec 21 02:34:39 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:34:39 -0600 Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I ... References: <29.341c47d3.2b34beda@aol.com> Message-ID: <3E03D33F.A050A6E8@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48640 srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 20/12/2002 11:47:24 Eastern Standard Time, > mb1984 at prodigy.net writes: > > > Becoming an animagus is supposed to be quite difficult, but I think > if three > > unsupervised schoolchildren in one year can manage it, it can't > possibly be > > a talent as rare as only seven (or eleven) in a century > > Actually, when Sirius and Lupin are explaining MWP&P, Lupin says: > > "It took them the better part of three years to work out how to do it. > Your > father and Sirius were the cleverest students in the schooll, and > lucky they > were, because the Anamagus transformation can go horribly wrong- one > reason > the Ministry keeps a close watch on those attempting to do it. Peter > neded > all the help he could get from James and Sirius. Finally, in our fifth > year, > they managed it. ...." > PoA Paperback edition, pg 354 > > So, they probably worked as diligently as HHR do when they are > learning > difficult spells-- especially in the restricted section of the > library... > > Actually, I would be suprised if Harry if not R and H as well, learn > the > transformation--- keeping with tradition. ;) > > -Snuffles > > One wonders if in fact, Peter needed help transforming back FROM a rat and got stuck for 14 years till Lupin and Sirius transformed him back? Explains Treelawny's 'chained' prediction thing.. Jazmyn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 11:05:30 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:05:30 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore know that Fake Moody = Crouch? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rehan Shamim " wrote: > Hello everyone, > > ...edited... > > My question is whether Dumbledore knew immediately that Fake Moody > was actually Barty Crouch, Jr. after he stormed into the office and > stunned him. He recognizes that this man isn't really Alastor > Moody, as he tells Harry that the real Moody would have never taken > him out of Dumbledore's sight. However, he also seems to > immediately realize that this man is Crouch Jr. Soon after stunning > him, he gives the following instructions to Snape: > > "Severus, please fetch me the strongest Truth Potion you possess, > and then go down to the kitchens and bring up the House-Elf called > Winky." (GoF, Chapter 35, "Veritaserum," Page 680 of original US > Edition) > > I think it is pretty obvious that Dumbledore would not send for > Winky if the impostor was just some random DE. ...edited... > > Choice A: Dumbledore knew the whole year that Crouch had infiltrated > ...edited... > > Choice B: Dumbledore did not know there was a spy at Hogwarts. He > may have been suspicious of some people, but not to the point where > he would do anything about it. After the Tournament, when Moody > takes Harry away, he realizes that Moody is the traitor. > ...edited... > > Rehan bboy_mn: Good catch; I hadn't thought of that before. I think maybe Dumbledore just put the pieces of the puzzle together, although he did so based more on intuition than actual evidence. Harry said to Dumbledore as the went out to find Crouch Sr. "...said he's (Crouch) done something terrible... he mentioned his son..." Now comes a part where I make a great leap. I have to assume Dumbledore questioned Harry in more detail than is indicated in the book. The next day, Harry said to Hermione- " ...he seemed to think his wife and son were alive..." Although, in context, that related more to his delusions, but if Dumbledore did question Harry in detail then he knows some of the stuff that Harry is saying to Hermione. That gave him a clue that somehow Crouch Sr's son is involved. Also, Dumbledore seems to have a strang/odd way of knowing thing. In most cases, especially if they have to do with Harry, he knows more than the available information would indicate. Whether he is gazing into an enchanted crystal ball or if he has a strong psychic intuitive sense, or what, I don't know. I can fantasize ways of explaining it, but you have, in a sense, brought up something that doesn't have an explaination; at least, no obvious explaination. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 11:25:57 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:25:57 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter's BIG Scoop! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "SHolden" wrote: > BeccaFran wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999 " > > wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve > > > " wrote: > > > > > > > * She know Sirius is a animagi big black dog. > > > > > > >Pettigrew, alias Wormtail, knows all about it. He can > > >tell Voldemort, if he hasn't already. > > > > > > Pippin > > > > bboy_mn replies: > > > > The problem isn't Voldemort/Death Eaters knowing and > >compromising his safety. The problem is that he is a notorious > >murderer, betrayer of the beloved Potters, and escaped criminal. > > > BeccaFran : > "The group that Sirius has to worry about now is the MoM, and > Fudge in particular (who's already shown he's only too happy to > have the Dementors take care of an escaped prisoner). > ...edited... > > Me: All *very* true. But wouldn't Rita also question why Ron, > Hermione, & Harry stated that Sirius was innocent, we know that she heard that. ...edited... > > Sara bboy_mn: Sara, while I agree with you in principle, I don't think Harry, Hermione, and Ron made a direct statement to that effect. Sirius transforms from a dog back to a human, and Mrs. Weasley scream. Ron says, "Mum, shut up. It's okay!" No one seems to make a fuss about his present; they all seem unconcerned. Dumbledore says he trusts Sirius, Snape and Sirius shake hands, and Dumbledore sends Sirus on an assignment. But no direct statements, unless you are talking about some other time and place. So Rita knows everyone is aiding Sirius and they seem to have no fear of him, but it's never specifically stated that he is innocent. Rita, as a journalist, is far too interested in a great story to let anything as mundane as the truth stand in here way. So I see danger for lots of people. Someone else pointed out that at this time, we don't actually know what Rita heard; all, part, none? But I assume for the sake of a great read by us, that she heard A LOT of damaging information. Just a few more thoughts. bboy_mn From amb66 at cam.ac.uk Sat Dec 21 11:25:01 2002 From: amb66 at cam.ac.uk (xunza2000 ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:25:01 -0000 Subject: colours; religion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48643 Dear Friends This is my first post, so please be gentle with me. Regarding colours: JKR is interested in people's hair and eye colour, first of all, and she seems to have a particular interest in people with red hair or green eyes (or maybe I just saw this point because I have both). But she also does seem to use colour symbolically. I'm not convinced, however, that her colours are always symbolic. For instance, doesn't Mrs Weasley knit Harry a green jumper one Christmas? To me, the most interesting thing about the colours is the red-green opposition. We see this most clearly in Voldemort's duel with Harry at the end of GoF. Voldemort's eyes are red, Harry's are green (nautrally), but the light from Harry's wand is red, and from Voldemort's is green. Now green and red are opposites on the spectrum - if you take a green-red colour wheel and spin it very fast, they cancel each other out and you get white. This would seem to support the idea that Harry and Voldemort are not just *happening* to be against each other. Rather, they are *meant* to oppose each other. It also suggests to me, in some way, that the link they share through the scar, and now the blood, means that they could, eventually cancel each other out - perhaps Harry could kill Voldemort by dying himself, or whatever. I'm aware that this link has probably been suggested before, but I'm just responding to the colour-related post on the previous digest. Thanks for reading. Now, regarding relgion: Yes, I think it's right that there is no mention of real relgions in Canon, and I've found the religious references in Fanon to be rather out of the character of the books. Why? Well, think of the analogy of technology and magic. Wizards do not use Muggle technology ('ekeltricity') because they have magic instead. The two worlds merely present two ways of doing the same thing. Religion, however, is different: first, it is about the supernatural, rather than the natural, and both Potter-world magic and Muggle technology operate on the level of the natural rather than the supernatural (largely, anyway); and second, religion is concerned with a metanarrative which informs the thoughts and actions of its adherents. The metanarrative in the Potter-world is, by contrast, much closer to a secular humanist model, with emphasis on personal choice and ethics. It's been pointed out that there are lots of similarities between the value system of the Potter world and, let us say, Christianity: not only in terms of ethics, but also in terms of the value of sacrificial love, though it is not possible to build up a working allegory or even a set of typologies, such as those intended by C S Lewis or J R R Tolkein. Finally, it should be pointed out that the fantasy stories which do contain references to religions in the real world are extremely few and far between. There is no parish priest in Cinderella's village, just as there is no school chaplain at Hogwarts. Really finally, this time, I will be very interested to see what JKR does with the issue of the afterlife: she has already said in an interview that we will find out why some people become ghosts and some do not. Perhaps this will be an opportunity to see what she thinks happens to wizards when they die - I really don't know what she'll do with this one, as it's kind of hard not to talk about religion in connection with this. Thank you for reading, and apologies once again if this ground has already been covered many times - I am new here. Yours Ally From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Dec 21 11:10:17 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 06:10:17 EST Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I... Message-ID: <49.2857adc7.2b35a619@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48644 In a message dated 21/12/2002 05:57:18 Eastern Standard Time, jazmyn at pacificpuma.com writes: > One wonders if in fact, Peter needed help transforming back FROM a rat > and got stuck for 14 years till Lupin and Sirius transformed him back? > Explains Treelawny's 'chained' prediction thing oooOOOOoooo... this is an interesting thought.... But, if he could transform as he did after killing all those muggles, wouldn't he be able to transform back to human form?? I really likethe idea though, since he stayed all those years as a rat without once, to our knowledge transforming to human before Sirius and Lupin force the transformation.... Yet, it would seem when he met Bertha jorkins at the pub he was human form... but perhaps Voldemort taught him to "retransform"... I dunno...... There are so many possibilities, and I state, in case anyone hadn't noticed, I only post from personal perspective ;) Not total fact... -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Dec 21 14:29:37 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:29:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ship: H/H vs. R/H References: Message-ID: <015c01c2a8fd$64122c20$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 48645 Hi -- Jodie said: >>>I'm new and I've just read over the summary of the debate i.e. who will end up with whom. Frankly, I think it's obvious who Harry will end up with, or at least who he wants to end up with (Cho).<<< Sara said: >>>I happen to disagree here. Cho is just a crush at the moment. Plus, Cho was Cedric's girlfriend. Harry definitely won't be able to get that out of his mind whenever he's with Cho. He'll remember Cedric, then his recent encounter with Voldemort, it'll just be too painful for him.<<< Jodie responded: << I'm just saying that, at the moment anyway, Cho is who he wants to end up with; if he had to choose, right now, between having hermione as a girlfriend or having Cho as a girlfriend, he would choose Cho. Not a second of thought. I brought her up only as evidence of his lack of any sexual interest in Hermione.>>>>> Er........noone who's H/H (including me) would try to argue that Harry is interested in Hermione right *now.* That's obvious. However, as JKR said "he's only 14, so he has plenty of time to change his mind." [JKR Scholastic chat -- Feb 3, 2000]. Seems rather pointless to debate who someone's life partner might or might not be, based on their romantic attachments in early adolescence. As Sara said, Cho is obviously just Harry's "first crush." My guess is that, based on the events of OoP, he won't have the same interest level in her that he did in GoF. GoF was just the beginning of Harry's burgeoning sexuality. It also seems unlikely to me that *all* of the characters would be paired off romantically with their life partners by the age of 17. <<<>>> Again -- see above. His feelings at 14 are unlikely to affect what he might think or want in his 20s or 30s. <<<>>>>>>>>> Again, noone thinks Harry has romantic interest in Hermione at this point (or I doubt anyone thinks this). But, of course, at age 14, he'd keenly miss the company of his male best friend -- I've never understood this passage to be anything more than commentary about how he feels about his male best friend, rather than commentary about how he thinks less of Hermione or couldn't possibly ever, ever afterwards have any romantic feelings for Hermione. This seems very short-sighted indeed. Goodness -- if I were romantically attached to the boy I was madly in love with when I was 14, my life would certainly have turned out very differently (and badly)! Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 21 15:29:23 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 15:29:23 -0000 Subject: FILK: Skeeter Will Say We're in Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48646 Skeeter Will Say We're in Love A filk by Pippin To the tune of People Will Say We're in Love Hear the tune at http://www.redsal.com/aolmidis/peopwlsa.mid Dedicated to Ebony The Scene: After the Daily Prophet article, Harry offers Hermione a little advice HARRY [Spoken] What if she writes more stories that link my name with yours What will the Slytherins tell her next, behind their paws I know a way to prove what they say is quite untrue Here is the gist, a practical list of "don'ts" for you [Sings] Don't bring your toast to me Don't send owl post to me She'll say that you're close to me Skeeter will say we're in love Don't give advice to me Don't show you're wise to me Don't ask to revise with me Skeeter will say we're in love If I get high a bit When I am veela bit Don't grab me and make me sit Skeeter will say we're in love Don't practice charms with me Don't spend your break with me Don't walk by the lake with me Skeeter will say we're in love Don't think of kissing me Just 'cause you'll be missing me She'll say we were meant to be Skeeter will say we're in love. Skeeter will say we're in love From kaityf at jorsm.com Sat Dec 21 15:48:29 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:48:29 -0600 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: References: <001001c2a7ff$b47d3a00$79edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221092822.012883e0@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48647 Steve wrote: >Let's weigh the situation- > > >Now, on the other hand- >* people might find out she is an unregistered animagi. > >The greatest group of stories she could ever imagine vs. being found >out as an animagi. >... >I stand firmly by what I said before - > >"EXPECT BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous trouble." >Deadly serious trouble. > >Maybe it will be Rita's big mouth or fat pen that will be responsible >for the death in the next book. I completely agree that we haven't seen the end of Rita and her Quick-Quote Quills. However, I'm not so sure that she will make an appearance in book 5. Sure, she is sitting on the best group of stories imaginable, but no other journalist knows them or is likely to learn about them, at least most of them. But we don't really know what the punishment is for being an unregistered animagi. It could be more serious than a fine. In any case, Rita hasn't agreed to remain silent forever. She is supposed to keep quiet for a year. That makes me suspect that we will see her back in book 6. I'm thinking book 5 will deal more with who aligns ups with which side -- the choices everyone will be making. The trio will have forgotten about Rita, thinking that had solved that problem earlier, but then in book 6, she'll make a return appearance causing all kinds of problems with what she knows. It seems to me that this could play quite nicely into the theme of choices. The information she has can be seen as information the public has a right to know or information that could cause problems for many individuals, if not the entire (WW) society. We hear this debate all the time. With every in position at the end of book 5 for the battle with Voldemort, Rita could create some major damage by releasing her information. When asked if she wrote Rita Skeeter as a response to how journalists "bothered" her after HP became so popular, she said, no, she had planned Rita from the beginning. So, again, it makes sense that Rita is in there as another part of the theme of choice and how our choices affect not only us and those around us, but even perhaps our society. Carol From kaityf at jorsm.com Sat Dec 21 16:05:03 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:05:03 -0600 Subject: Lucius' Influence (was Karkaroff/Owl Tracking/Wands/CU@Work/resist) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221095456.031ade98@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48648 Carol wrote: ><< I've never seen any indication that Lucius has a job let alone a >job at the MOM. >> Catlady responded: >I am certain that Lucius would never do anything so vulgar as have a >*job*. I assumed that "I'll see you at work" meant dropping in at >*Arthur's* work. I couldn't imagine Lucius *working* either. That's a good point about Lucius dropping in at Arthur's work. But then I wonder why he'd do that. We know he's a very influential person, getting himself on Hogwarts board of governors, seeing to it that Buckbeak is tried and executed (even though the execution failed). On the other hand, we also know that Lucius is concerned about the MOM conducting a raid on his house since in GoF he is trying to sell stuff he'd rather not have found in his house should there be a raid. So at what point does his influence stop? Why would he be dropping in at the MOM and yet be afraid that he'd be raided? And more to the point, who would ever think to raid the Malfoy manor for *Muggle* artifacts? That is what Arthur's raids are all about, after all. Or have I missed something? Could those raids for Muggle things be a cover up for what the MOM is really looking for -- evidence of Dark Arts? And if it IS a cover up, does this say something about what Arthur's true job at the MOM is? I firmly believe that Arthur is far more than what he appears to be (as is Molly). Carol From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Dec 21 16:32:04 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:32:04 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius' Influence (was Karkaroff/Owl Tracking/Wands/CU@Work/resist) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221095456.031ade98@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <001101c2a90e$809240e0$828601d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48649 Carol wrote: > And more > to the point, who would ever think to raid the Malfoy manor for *Muggle* > artifacts? That is what Arthur's raids are all about, after all. Or have > I missed something? Could those raids for Muggle things be a cover up for > what the MOM is really looking for -- evidence of Dark Arts? And if it IS > a cover up, does this say something about what Arthur's true job at the MOM > is? I firmly believe that Arthur is far more than what he appears to be > (as is Molly). AFAIR, it's the misuse of muggle artefacts. That would be stuff like Voldemort's diary - ordinary muggle-made thing filled with dark magic. I think it would appeal to Lucius very much to put spells on some Muggle objects and release them to unsuspecting muggles, and it falls into Arthur's department to deal with. Ironically it would require from Lucius better understanding of how muggle objects work than Arthur has. Irene From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 12:11:50 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:11:50 -0000 Subject: Question about Barty Jr.!Moody teaching Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48650 I've done some preliminary looking, but haven't found a post that addresses this question. I'm sorry if it's been discussed to death already...this only my second post to the group. When Barty Crouch, Jr. was disguised as Mad-Eye Moody and teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts to all the Gryffindors, including Harry, why did Barty Jr. "teach" Harry to throw off the Imperius Curse? I realize that Harry has a natural talent for resisting the Imperius Curse in the first place, but why would Barty Jr. put Harry through his paces "four times" until Harry could throw it off entirely? This lesson left Harry completely prepared to throw off Voldemort's attempted Imperius Curse at the end of GoF. Taking into account that Barty Jr. needed to deliver Harry alive to Voldemort for his spell-to-get-his-body-back to work, Barty Jr. still seemed to teach Harry and his classmates quite a few things that ended up helping Harry when he was facing Voldemort at the end. I know that Barty!Moody had to appear and act like the real Moody, but he was working for Voldemort the whole time and wouldn't seem to want to teach Harry useful things that could help Harry *fight back* against Voldemort. I've just reread GoF and Barty!Moody's practical (and quite useful) lessons still puzzle me. The only explanation I can come up with is that Barty!Moody thought Voldemort might have preferred a longer and therefore more *entertaining* duel with Harry? Or maybe Barty! Moody thought someone else [not Voldemort] might have used the Imperius Curse on Harry that would have ruined Voldemort's plans? Or, my current front-running theory, is that Barty!Moody thought showing the Three Unforgivable Curses to Harry would frighten him more, thus leading to more pleasure for Voldemort and pain for Harry? After all, knowing what horrible thing is coming is much worse than not knowing to be afraid at all. This last theory makes Barty!Moody a very unpleasant and nasty character, even more than before. Anyone care to share their theories? :) Diana From kristen at sanderson-web.com Sat Dec 21 18:04:06 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:04:06 -0000 Subject: Question about Barty Jr.!Moody teaching Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana " wrote: > > I've just reread GoF and Barty!Moody's practical (and quite useful) > lessons still puzzle me. The only explanation I can come up with > is that Barty!Moody thought Voldemort might have preferred a longer > and therefore more *entertaining* duel with Harry? Or maybe Barty! > Moody thought someone else [not Voldemort] might have used the > Imperius Curse on Harry that would have ruined Voldemort's plans? > Or, my current front-running theory, is that Barty!Moody thought > showing the Three Unforgivable Curses to Harry would frighten him > more, thus leading to more pleasure for Voldemort and pain for > Harry? After all, knowing what horrible thing is coming is much > worse than not knowing to be afraid at all. This last theory makes > Barty!Moody a very unpleasant and nasty character, even more than > before. > > Anyone care to share their theories? :) Judging from Voldemort's actions, it was probably arrogance on Barty! Moody's part. He wouldn't think that there was any possibility of Dumbledore's students winning against the DEs, so it wouldn't matter what he taught them. It may not have occurred to him to be cautious what he taught them. Also, if he did have an actual purpose for it, it could be more digging to find out why Harry is so special - what powers allowed him to defeat Voldemort the first time. Or, if you will, perhaps he knows what is special about Harry and already knew he could defeat the curse. We don't know yet why Harry is so special, but presumably Voldemort does. Kristen From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 18:09:17 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:09:17 -0000 Subject: Ron and the Imperio (was Re: Ship: H/H vs. R/H) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "anakinbester < anakinbester at h...>" wrote: > This however scares the beejessus outta me! > " 'Yeah I know,' said Ron, who was skipping on every alternative > step. He had much more difficulty with the [imperio] curse than Harry > though Moody had assured him the effects would wear off by lunch > time." -GoF USA version pg 253 > > I'm sure this got mentioned before, but yeah, this has little red > flags written all over it, because it was mentioned the Harry can > resist it, and that was important, so I can't imagine it not being > important that Ron is so unable to fight it that he still as problems > even after the curse is off. *Shudders* that to me doe not bode well. > That just screams foreshadowing like nothing else has to me. > > -Ani And, well, really... how do we know the curse actually DID get taken off of him? I suppose at this point it's not much more than idle speculation, but yes, I agree with you, that sets off warning signals. CK From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Dec 21 18:20:23 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 13:20:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Barty Jr.!Moody teaching Harry Message-ID: <1bb.b2f8412.2b360ae7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48653 Diana: > I've done some preliminary looking, but haven't found a post that > addresses this question. I'm sorry if it's been discussed to death > already...this only my second post to the group. Well, it's the fourth time the question has come up in the year that I've been here, but searching the archives isn't very easy, I know. :-) > > When Barty Crouch, Jr. was disguised as Mad-Eye Moody and teaching > Defense Against the Dark Arts to all the Gryffindors, including > Harry, why did Barty Jr. "teach" Harry to throw off the Imperius > Curse? Since I only rehearsed my pet theory on this subject very recently, I shan't repeat it, but refer you to my post #48344. If you have any comments, I'd be delighted to hear them. ~Eloise One of whose other pet theories is, as you may know, called Diana. :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Dec 21 18:31:21 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:31:21 -0800 Subject: How does Imperio work? was, Re: [HPforGrownups] Ron and the Imperio (was Re: Ship: H/H vs. R/H) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22130195940.20021221103121@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48654 Hi, Saturday, December 21, 2002, 10:09:17 AM, clicketykeys wrote: > And, well, really... how do we know the curse actually DID get taken > off of him? I suppose at this point it's not much more than idle > speculation, but yes, I agree with you, that sets off warning signals. I've entertained the possibility that the Imperius curse was never taken off Ron, but I always get stuck with this theory, because I don't know enough about how the curse actually works. If you imperio someone, do you have to be with them the whole time and control all their actions? Or can they be left under it for long periods of time and act perfectly normal, not showing any signs of being under the curse and not realizing something is up with them? And then, when you want them to do something, you can just tell them? And what if somebody else gives them a command? Do they only follow the directions given by the person who imperiod them? Can the curse be taken off by anyone? I'll have to read the pertinent sections in the books again to find out more... -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 18:55:20 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:55:20 -0000 Subject: Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eudaemonia_splinched < splinched at h...>" wrote: > Additionally, after Cedric's death, how much of a fan of Harry will > she be? No one but a few really knew the specifics of how Cedric > died, but if a person were to be a student at that school I'd be > somewhat skeptical of how the *great* Harry Potter was able to walk > away -- he can save himself against Voldemort, but no one else eh? Doubt I'm covering any new ground here, so I'll be brief. I think this goes the other way - Harry will have difficulty being around Cho because of what happened to Cedric. Sometimes it's easier to forgive someone else, and much harder to forgive yourself. CK From clicketykeys at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 19:18:37 2002 From: clicketykeys at yahoo.com (clicketykeys ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 19:18:37 -0000 Subject: Resisting the Imperius Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erisedstraeh2002 < erisedstraeh2002 at y...>" wrote: > What confuses me is that Harry, the only student who can withstand > the curse, seems to do so innately. The "voice in the back of his > brain" tells him not to obey Fake!Moody's commands. Yet Fake!Moody > talks about "teaching" the students to fight the Imperius curse, and > he assigns them reading on resisting the curse. But we don't know that the other students /didn't/ have a voice telling them not to obey - only that they didn't listen to the voice as effectively as Harry did. CK From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 19:36:29 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 19:36:29 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I don't understand In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221092822.012883e0@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Carol Bainbridge wrote: > Steve wrote: > >Let's weigh the situation- > > > >The greatest group of stories she could ever imagine vs. > being found out as an animagi. > >... > >I stand firmly by what I said before - > > > >"EXPECT BIG TROUBLE FROM RITA IN THE NEXT BOOK. Disasterous > >trouble." Deadly serious trouble. > > > >bboy_mn > Carol: > > I completely agree that we haven't seen the end of Rita and her > Quick-Quote Quills. However, I'm not so sure that she will make > an appearance in book 5. > ...edited... > Rita hasn't agreed to remain silent forever. She is supposed to > keep quiet for a year. That makes me suspect that we will see her > back in book 6. > ...edited... > > Carol bboy_mn respond: I like that idea. Personally, I don't think she can stay quiet that long but Hermione she was making Rita stay silent for a year to see if it would keep her from making up horrible lies about people. Although, Hermione never mentions anything about forbiding her to speak about what she heard in the hospital. Maybe Hermione was so fixated on all the things that Rita had already done that the hospital room never occurred to her. But this story is so fantastic that it doesn't need any lies to make it better. Just when things are heating up in the new Voldemort war, Rita breaks loose with her story casting doubt on Dumbledore, putting Snape and Sirius at risk, tarnishing the image of our hero, and other nasty stuff. I'm not sure I agree, but it's a great story, and if I was you, I'd stick to it. bboy_mn From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 19:38:19 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:38:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: How does Imperio work? was, Re: [HPforGrownups] Ron and the Imperio (was Re: Ship: H/H vs. R/H) In-Reply-To: <22130195940.20021221103121@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20021221193819.60872.qmail@web14610.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48658 Susanne wrote: <<>> I think there are different "strengths"of the Imperius Curse. We know that LV put Crouch Sr under it and Crouch went to work and to Hogwarts while LV was still in the Crouch home. But Crouch was a strong wizard and when he started to resist the curse, LV kept him at home. So I do think that proximity and focus on the subject of the curse is needed to up the power on it. Some of the DEs were apprently under Imperius for years (yes, now we know that many were lying, ie the Malfoys, Avery, Nott, etc. But it seems to be common belief that many DEs WERE not in control of themselves, this really remains to be seen). Obviously LV was not lording over each and every one of these people (though it may be otehr followers who were put in "charge"of certain people). Hagrid talks of people "coming out of a trance"after LV dissapeared. Which means if the person who is controlling you dies, or is incapacitated you are released from the curse. It is not something you put on someone and it just stays until it is taken off, it is something which has to be APPLIED. So if Ron WAS imperioed by Crouch Jr besides during DADA, he would have been released when (if) Crouch was kissed. But would Ron remember? Wasn't there also a case of Harry walking funny after practicing hexes with Hermione? Jelly-legs I believe. I do not know if this foreshadows Harry being forever an easy victim to THIS dreaded curse. :) <> ME: My impression is YES. But there is no REAL canon for this I guess. <> ME: I think it could be taken off by attacking/incapacitating the curser. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kamala_2347 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 19:02:57 2002 From: kamala_2347 at yahoo.com (kamala_2347 ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 19:02:57 -0000 Subject: Lucius' Influence (was Karkaroff/Owl Tracking/Wands/CU@Work/resist) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221095456.031ade98@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48659 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Carol Bainbridge wrote: >Carol wrote: I've never seen any indication that Lucius has a job let alone a job at the MOM. >Catlady responded: I am certain that Lucius would never do anything so vulgar as have a *job*. I assumed that "I'll see you at work" meant dropping in at *Arthur's* work. >Carol: I couldn't imagine Lucius *working* either. That's a good point about Lucius dropping in at Arthur's work. But then I wonder why he'd do that. Why would he be dropping in at the MOM and yet be afraid that he'd be raided? I think we have movie contamination here. In the movie Lucius does say something to the effect of "see you at the office" (I don't remember exactly). In CoS this doesn't occur. Lucius - "Dear me, what's the use of being a disgrace to the name of wizard if they don't even pay you well for it." Arthur - "We have a very different idea of what disgraces the name of wizard, Malfoy." Lucius - "Clearly... The company you keep, Weasley... and I thought your family could sink no lower-" Arthur then launches himself at Lucius, they tumble around the shop, Hagrid breaks them apart, then Lucius leaves ... "Here girl - take your book - it's the best your father can give you -". I do not believe Lucius works for the MoM, but being from an old wizarding family still has a lot of perceived influence. ~Kamala Who's making her first post after lurking for quite a while. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 20:39:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:39:14 -0000 Subject: How does Imperio work? was, Re: [HPforGrownups] Ron and the Imperio (was Re: Shi In-Reply-To: <22130195940.20021221103121@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susanne wrote: > I've entertained the possibility that the Imperius curse was > never taken off Ron, but I always get stuck with this > theory, because I don't know enough about how the curse > actually works. > > ...edited... > > Susanne bboy_mn: I think the curse can work several way. 1.) The immediate command, "Jump onto the desk." 2.) Then general command, "Go to work, act normal, and don't tell them anything about me (Voldemort)." Or, "Go to work, act normal, and report anything that might help the Death Eaters to Rookwood." 3.) A triggered command, "Go to work, act normal, and when Malfoy says, 'Mars is very bight tonight', you will kill Minister Fudge." If we think of Harry's reactions (actually his thoughts) when placed under the curse, you see that the curse works much like sodium pentothal (muggle truth serum). It creates a tremendous overpowering sense of euphoria. It creates a very stoned out 'I don't care' state of mind which completely inhibits impulse control. Someone asks you to implicate yourself in a crime, and you don't care. You don't care who knows or what the consequenses are. There is no part of you that is balancing the merits of the request. So, you are so unihibited, you tell them whatever they ask. You've lost both you good and bad conscience. Imperius works the same way. Moody tells Neville to perform gymnastics, but the part of Neville that would logically and reasonably say, 'I'm an unathletic fat kid who is hopelessly clumsy. Performing gymnastics is suicide.' has been so supressed by the positively all consuming euphoria that Neville doesn't argue. He performs gymnastics. Part of it is similar to the Vella, I suspect that there is a sense that if you fail to obey, you will lose the wonderful bliss that is consuming you. As with the Vella, you will do anything to make sure that that pleasure and comfort do not go away. Now, in long term Imperius enchantments, I suspect there is a residual bliss, that keeps you from revealing that you are acting under someone else's control, although, it's not that apparent from the outside. It is apparent to some extent and does seem to cause some stress. Harry remarks several times that Crouch doesn't look too good and maybe isn't acting quite right. But most people would probably think the person in question was just having a bad day. Now, the insidious part; if you are under the Imperius Curse, the more an act goes against your true nature, the greater the sense of euphoria. The closer you get to committing 'the crime', the better you feel, and the greater you inhibitions are supressed. Quite a clever curse I would say. You are only mildly 'drugged' during your normal life, and when it time to do the evil deed, the ecstacy it overwhelming. Now to Harry. Harry is an inhibited person. He has been supressed his whole life while at the Dursley's. Plus, an abused person learns to restrain themselves. They learn that no action is better than the wrong action. While Harry is without a doubt very brave in the face of danger, he is very shy in the face of daily life. He doesn't have alot of close friends. Even with the close friends he does have, he is frequently inhibited; holding back, keeping secrets. He is not so inhibited that he is disfunctional, but his inhibitions are strong enough that even under the Imperious Curse, they don't go away completely. So when Moody says 'jump', he really doesn't want to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Harry could resist the curse because he was weak. This sense of inhibition, is part of the interplay of good and bad conscience which operate at much more subtle levels than just right and wrong. In fact, we know that Harry is a very selfless and moral person, and has great strength of character, but he's also a little shy. It's that moral center and strength of character that are part of how he is able to ask 'why?'. 'Why should I jump on the desk?' I think another small trace of this comes from being abused. An abused kids knows that no matter how good the moment is, any small thing could set the abuser off and spoil it. So there is always a part of them that is on guard. A part of them that never completely lets their inhibitions down. Living with an abuser is like carrying a bomb in your pocket. You can laugh as hard as you want too, but there is always a part of you that know the next laugh might be the one that sets it off. Again, I want to make sure no one interprets this as me say Harry was able to do this not because he was strong, but because he was weak. I'm not saying that at all. All these elements good and bad, have accumulated over a lifetime (a short lifetime) to build Harry into the strong, morally centered, selfless person that he is. That's my story and I'm stuck with it. bboy_mn From jodel at aol.com Sat Dec 21 21:54:27 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:54:27 EST Subject: "Bad boy" Victor Krum? Message-ID: <12e.1e4beef8.2b363d13@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48661 Snuffles comments, in an aside; >>( This bad boy personification of Krum would psychologically fit Hermoine, though. She has already shown by her actions in yelling and Trelawny and storming out of her class and punching Malfoy that she has some pent up negative energy. If Krum is a bad boy type character, he can give her an outlet.)<< But what, apart from his rather sullen, indrawn demeanor, suggests anything of the "bad boy" about Victor Krum? He isn't physically attractive, to be sure, but that hardly qualifies as an indicator. In fact, I've begun to suspect that he functions on a different level altogether. At this point in the story arc, he seems to be a stand-in for the "good Slytherin" that most of the older readers of the series have been impatiently waiting for. And, as such, is painted black all over by outside observers simply because he is from Durmstrang. And he is quite clever enough to be fully aware of this. Doesn't it occur to *anyone* that this is the *exact* flip side to the anti-Muggle-born prejudice which is thrown at a bright young witch like Hermione? The two of them really do have a good deal in common. Actually, the oddest thing (and it really *is* odd!) we've seen about Krum is that he really *is* a star athelete, with a worldwide reputation -- and there is not a trace of the kind of "strutting sports star arrogance" about him that Snape flings accusations of at Harry (and which may actually have applied to James, we do not know, but there has been nothing said by any of Jame's friends which would actually contradict it). Even though flying is something that Krum does himself that actually deserves the praise he gets for it, he seems as sensitive to his public adulation as Harry does about the undeserved reverance he gets for having survived the attack made on him when he was a baby. In fact, he seems almost painfully shy. In further fact, the list of inessential things which can be held against him just goes on, and on. And not one of them seems to have any bearing on his moral sensiblities or political position. 1. He's homely. 2. When he isn't on a broomstick he has bad posture and walks like a duck. 3. He is inarticulate. I don't think this is solely due to his not being overly fluent in English. 4. He is withdrawn in a manner that can easily be read as sullen. Socially inept. 5. He is lumbered with a lot of rather heavy baggage simply because he is from Durmstrang and seems to be really bothered by this. And, the one relevant issue; 6. He is surrounded by Durmstrangers and Slytherins. And probably always has been. On the other hand; 1. He is an outstanding athlete. Genuinely and *honestly*. (*He* wasn't the one committing fouls left and right at the World Cup!) 2. He is intellegent. It may be book-smarts rather than street-smarts, but it counts. 3. He is polite and well-mannered. Perhaps a little stiff and formal by the standards of British teenagers, but he was clearly "well-brought up". 4. His awreness and unhapiness over the perceptions of others because of his association with Durmstrang argues for a degree of sensitivity. 5. He is strong enough and capable enough as a *wizard* that the Goblet chose him as the best candidate of all the students from Durmstrang. And, something rather interesting when you think of it; 6. He deliberately sought Hermione Granger out, despite the fact that among the people that he was stuck with all would unhesitatingly have pointed her out as "that mudblood know-it-all" (who was not really all *that* obviously pretty until she decided to deliberately make something of her assets). I think he recognized that for all her friendship with another of the Champions, the two of them were both essentially outsiders at Hogwarts. It is not at all surprising that she was the "thing he would most have feared to lose" come the time for the second task. I suspect that had he been sent to Hogwarts rather than Durmstrang the Hat would have sent him to Ravenclaw. It also occurs to me that we might be getting another echo/mirrror effect here. Not as close an apparant similarity as the one between the younger Professor Quirrel and Percy Weasley, but certainly stronger than the (I suspect spurious) Neville/Peter one. Think back a generation. I can think of another homely, intellegent, overly sensitive youngster who may have also been socially inept but was very competent at *wizardry* who had also been thrown in with a lot of 'evil companions' from an early age. Can't you? Draco, after all, clearly mirrors no one other than his father... -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Sat Dec 21 21:54:37 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:54:37 EST Subject: The MoM & Hogwarts Message-ID: <181.13f9118c.2b363d1d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48662 The discussion goes; >> rinceceol wrote: SNIP<> Angela replies; Yes, but it was Voldemort-Imperio-ed-Crouch who hand selected Percey for a "promotion". It seems to me that under normal circumstances someone further up in the hierarchy of Crouch's department would have taken over his affairs. But LV probably wanted someone young, impressionable, and inexperienced, so they would not become suspicious (as I believe a more experienced MoM wizard would), and so LV had Crouch give this young kid a HUGE promotion and put him in charge.<< Don't forget that LV's advisor Peter Petigrew also knew Percy Weasley very well. He'd been living with the boy's family for the past 12 years. Finding him in Crouch's office must have made it seem as though Christmas had come early that year. -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Sat Dec 21 21:54:33 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:54:33 EST Subject: Old debate on Weasley Ages (was; Hagrid? Age?) Message-ID: <4b.284511a4.2b363d19@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48663 Pip!Squek reminds us; >>I don't see that that's a problem with the timeline. Tom Riddle in CoS says Dumbledore persuaded Dippet that Hagrid should be 'trained' as gamekeeper. So for Hagrid to be trained implied that someone else was gamekeeper at the time (to do the training). This was probably Ogg, who continued as Gamekeeper until Molly and Arthur's time. << Which is a clue as to just when Arthur and Molly might have been at Hogwarts. I doubt that Ogg would have turned the job over to Hagrid before he'd been working with him long enough to be sure that he wouldn't flake out in an emergency. Plus, Hagrid was still a *child* when he started training under Ogg. Apprenticships were traditionally seven years. Hagrid was expelled in June, 1943. Going by the terms of a traditional apprenticship, the earliest that Hagrid could have taken over would have been around 1950. Which sounds a little early for Molly and Arthur to already be at Hogwarts. (I've always pictured them as early baby-boomers, born right after WWII.) Of course, we are also reasoning from very scanty information. Hagrid could have been Ogg's "assistant" for any number of years after finishing out his term as apprentice. The deal was to train him as Ogg's eventual replacement, not that Ogg was to step aside as soon as Hagrid was trained. (If Arthur/Molly/[Lucius M?] were born around 1945 they would have been the class of '63.) For that matter the reference was of Molly "recalling at length about the gamekeeper before Hagrid", and that was about it. Nothing in that sentence which either claims or implies anything other than that Molly came to Hogwarts before Ogg stpped down. Not even that he may or may not have done so durring Molly's time there. (It was an encounter with the caretaker Apollyon Pringle that left Arthur with marks he still has. Nothing to do with Ogg.) -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Sat Dec 21 21:54:35 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:54:35 EST Subject: Rita Skeeter, was Re: Re: Things I don't understand Message-ID: <177.13f53aa2.2b363d1b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48664 BoBaFeTT states; >>I don't expect anything but good things from Rita. Remember, she's still an unregistered animagus and that's how she gets her scoops. Why would she risk her entire way of life for small-time revenge like that?<< We don't know Rita's political position or her own personal leanings regarding Voldemort's return. At a guess, I would say that the fact that she was getting her personal interviews from the Slytherins -- and the fact that they knew about her being an illegal animagus -- suggests nothing good. At the very least, she was at Hogwarts with some of their family members and has kept in touch with them, either socially or professionally after leaving school. The probability that she is an alumus of Slytherin House is also pretty strong. Mind you, this does not mean that *she* supports Voldemort. But she is in pretty strongly with people who do, and is clever enough to know that their public lip service to the Ministry isn't all it should be... As to the Hermione/Rita situation. There's a further complication. Malfoy *knows* that Hermione caught Rita and kept her in a jar. He was evesdropping outside their compartment and heard her tell Harry and Ron all about it. THAT can't bode well for Hermione remaining safely in the background while Harry gets all the attention. Even if Rita drops it -- and she's already demonstrated that she has a nasty vindictive streak where Hermione is concerned. We also don't know just how much Rita heard. Hermione had already figured it out and was on watch for something. But we don't know whether she was checking all of the windows in turn, or whether there was only the one window where Harry was. If the first, she may have been listning for some time before Hermione got to that particular window. If the later, we could be in luck. Hermione was watching and may have got her before she had a chance to hear too much. Otherwise, Rita colud have enough information to have Dumbledore removed from his office. (Opposing the Ministry, harboring fugitives.) Which may actually happen. After all, the requirements of this sort of comming-of-age quest only demand that the "wise counsellor" figure be removed from the playing board. Not that he necessarily die. And if Dumbledore does get ousted,that could happen as early as the fifth book. -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Sat Dec 21 21:54:43 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:54:43 EST Subject: Hermione's wand and related question. Message-ID: <198.12b1f496.2b363d23@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48665 Lisa, (Newcastle,Australia) Asks; >>Does anyone have any information regarding the properties of Hermione's wand? 2. Despite Ollivander's assertion, "You'd never get such good results with another Wizard's wand",(P.S.,64), first year Hermione was able to flawlessly perform the alohomora charm with Harry's wand. A wand fine-tuned to Harry and, by the nature of their connection, to Voldemort.<< When did this happen? I don't recall Hermione performing any spells with *Harry's* wand. (Although if it was during the labrynth sequence, that was the end of the year, by which time most students would have been able to get *some* results from somebody else's wand. And Hermione might be3 expected to be better than average at it -- she was at everything else.) As to Hermione's wand, we have been told *nothing* of it to date. (It's mostly the boys who go about bragging about their wands, after all.) I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that her wand has a phoenix feather core. (She IS good at Transfiguration, and phoenix feather seems to be the most excellent conductor for "change" magic -- as unicorn hair is for "charm" magic. We still don't know what dragon heartstring's specialty is.) But for symetry one might rather expect her to carry dragon heartstring. (We already know that Harry's is phoenix feather and Ron's is unicorn hair.) Somewhere back in the archives there was a nice little discussion of the symbolism attached to dfferent trees which you might find interesting. I don't know whether the wand in question that set it off was Snapes or Hermione's but it might have been either. For the record, we don't know the components of Dumbledore's wand either. Or of any of the teachers', except Hagrid's original one. (Oak and dragon heartstring, 16 inches.) -JOdel (who agrees that the most likely scenareo for a "betrayal" from Hermione is for her to pass information to the wrong party out of misjudgement of character/motives.) From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sat Dec 21 23:05:10 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 23:05:10 -0000 Subject: wizard/muggle relations: The Dark Side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48666 Chris said, regarding the potential harm of Memory Charms >Sorry to contridict you, but Crouch Jnr specifically says that >Beatha's mind was damaged by his farther's curse. And I reply: Yes, but that was a particularly strong charm. Crouch needed to make sure Bertha forgot that one of the most dangerous criminals of the time was alive and being hidden by a powerful MoM official. Most memory charms seem to be used to make a Muggle forget a single event, say, seeing a random person on a broomstick fly over his or her house. This wouldn't be too difficult, since the event isn't connected to any other thoughts of said Muggle. Just change "I just saw a person flying on a broomstick over my house" to "What a beutiful sky today". No problem, probably no long-term effects. But change, "Oh my God! Dangerous criminal! Might be helping He Who Must Not Be Named! And the Ministry of Magic is in on this! I must warn everyone!" to "My, what an uneventful day" and things start to get a bit unstable. -Corinth From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 22 00:23:06 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:23:06 -0000 Subject: Muggle Artifacts/resisting Imperius/Lucius Power/Veela/A & M Weasley Ages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48667 Irene: << Ironically it would require from Lucius better understanding of how muggle objects work than Arthur has. >> Not if he sticks to very simple Muggle artifacts that even wizards can understand, like books, teacups, and housekeys. Clickety Keys: << But we don't know that the other students /didn't/ have a voice telling them not to obey - only that they didn't listen to the voice as effectively as Harry did.>> I believe that the other students *didn't* have a voice telling them not to obey, because I believe that what Harry heard was what remained of Lily's voice, what remained of Lily's protection that she had used her last moments and last magic to wrap around him. Kamala: << being from an old wizarding family still has a lot of perceived influence. >> And being extremely rich appears to have a lot of *real* influence. Even if British wizard politicians aren't dependent on campaign contributions like USA Muggle politicians, we've *seen* Fudge being influenced by Lucius's donations to St. Mungo's --- it is possible for 'donations to a good cause' to actually be bribes to a person, such as if they fund a job earmarked for the person's close relative. And canon, CoS the book, gives us evidence of Lucius influencing people (the other Governors of Hogwarts) by threatening to curse their families. That has always sounded strange to me: don't the other Governors think that, with such warning, they can adequately protect their families, by putting protective Charms on them, hiring bodyguard wizards, and so on? How did they get to be Governors of Hogwarts with neither enough magic power to protect their families themselves nor enough money to hire other wizards to do so? Steve bboy_mn: << Part of it is similar to the Vella, I suspect that there is a sense that if you fail to obey, you will lose the wonderful bliss that is consuming you. As with the Vella, you will do anything to make sure that that pleasure and comfort do not go away. >> Your lovely post gives me an excuse to repeat my *suggestion* that Potterverse Veelas really are human, a very in-bred group of witches who have hereditary pale blonde coloring, the ability to transform into big dangerous birds, and a built-in Imperius Charm with the command "Desire me" aimed at all men (all heterosexual men and gay women?) in the vicinity. The young men's reaction to the Veelas was not just that they didn't want to do anything to end this pleasure of their company; it was also that they actively sought to be closer to the Veelas. We saw them telling ridiculous lies (brags) like "I invented a broomstick that can fly to Jupiter" to try to make a good impression on a Veela, and asking the Veela for a date. JOdel: << the earliest that Hagrid could have taken over would have been around 1950. Which sounds a little early for Molly and Arthur to already be at Hogwarts. (I've always pictured them as early baby-boomers, born right after WWII.) >> I think Arthur and Molly are much older than that. Remember those wizarding *long* lives. Dumbledore's hair was still auburn when he was 100 years old in the CoS flashback. I explained in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/41510 how that translates to either 60 or 50 in Muggle years. McGonagall has black hair in canon and was stated by JKR to be "a spritely 70", which translates to 40-45 in Muggle years. If you imagine Arthur and Molly being the equivalent of Muggle 50 years old in 1996 (end of book 5 or beginning of book 6), that would make them around 70 to 100 years old in calendar years. I see Arthur, Molly, Minerva, Hagrid, and TMR all going to school around the same time... Arthur and Molly might be a little bit older than Minerva, who might be a little bit older than Hagrid ... I'm a bit bugged by Draco saying that *of course* 50 years ago was before his father's time at Hogwarts. To me, children and young teens don't have enough sense of adult ages, their parents' ages in particular, that his father being younger than Professor McGonagall is *of course*. I mean, when I was young, I thought my parents were ancient... However, since it is therefore canon that Lucius was not at school with TMR, I've decided to make him have been born in 1950, thus *very* young for a wizard. From kaityf at jorsm.com Sun Dec 22 01:02:39 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 19:02:39 -0600 Subject: Lucius and Arthur (was Lucius' Influence) In-Reply-To: <001101c2a90e$809240e0$828601d5@oemcomputer> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221095456.031ade98@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221164904.03419c88@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48668 Carol wrote: > > And more > > to the point, who would ever think to raid the Malfoy manor for *Muggle* > > artifacts? That is what Arthur's raids are all about, after all. Or have > > I missed something? Could those raids for Muggle things be a cover up for > > what the MOM is really looking for -- evidence of Dark Arts? Irene answered: >AFAIR, it's the misuse of muggle artefacts. That would be stuff like >Voldemort's diary - ordinary muggle-made thing filled with dark magic. How do we know the diary was made by Muggles? Are all diaries made by Muggles? I had always assumed that what witches and wizards owned had also been made by witches and wizards. If they buy Muggle goods, how do they buy it all? I'm sure they could just go to Gringotts and exchange currency, but then it seems to me that there wouldn't be so much confusion over how to use Muggle money. Of course, Tom Riddle would know how to use Muggle money, but even so, I don't know why the diary *has* to be a Muggle-made one. Irene also wrote: >I think it would appeal to Lucius very much to put spells on some Muggle >objects and release them to unsuspecting muggles, and it falls into >Arthur's department to deal with. Ironically it would require from Lucius >better understanding of how muggle objects work than Arthur has. That is, of course, possible, but this kind of Muggle baiting seems rather beneath Lucius. I just can't imagine Lucius tinkering with Muggle artifacts to unleash on unsuspecting Muggles. Kamala wrote: >I think we have movie contamination here. In the movie Lucius does >say something to the effect of "see you at the office" (I don't >remember exactly). In CoS this doesn't occur. Yes, I know this was never said in the book and I know it was said in the movie. However, there has been previous discussion about whether or not Lucius works at all and if so where. The line in the movie just made me think more about whether or not Lucius works and if so, whether it would be possible that he would work at the MOM. Personally, I can't see him working anywhere, not even at the ministry. I also wondered about the kind of influence Lucius has over people and places. What kind of influence does he have at the ministry? If he has as much influence there as he seems to have elsewhere, then why wouldn't he be able to steer people away from raiding his house? It strikes me as odd that Lucius would worry about being raided. And I got the distinct impression that he was not worried about Muggle artifacts being found in his manor. I don't think that Borgins is not in the business of buying charmed Muggle artifacts. Kamala again: >I do not believe Lucius works for the MoM, but being from an old >wizarding family still has a lot of perceived influence. I wonder about this. Is it only being from an old wizarding family? I find it pretty disturbing that a man like Lucius who had been associated with Death Eaters could have, in such a short time, regained such a high level of influence. In fact, I find it disturbing that many of the once accused DE's reached the positions they have (Lucius, Bagman...) I've always wondered if there was some sort of wizard shortage that made it impossible to choose from less tainted wizards and witches. Carol also said: > >And if it IS > > a cover up, does this say something about what Arthur's true job at the MOM > > is? I firmly believe that Arthur is far more than what he appears to be > > (as is Molly). Responding to my own comment: I keep wondering about Arthur...and Molly. Why does Arthur have to work late nights and weekends? Are charmed Muggle artifacts THAT important that things can't wait? I can understand a crisis like the one with Mad Eye Moody, but is everything to do with Muggle artifacts a crisis? Are raids for Muggle artifacts that important? In CoS, Arthur is out almost all night on raids. I find that odd. Also, I keep asking for ideas as to why Arthur had gone -- just the once -- to Azkaban. For what? And then I do wonder about that trip to Egypt. As I mentioned in a previous note, some people think that magic originated there. I keep thinking that Arthur was sent to Egypt and the vacation was just a ruse. Carol From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun Dec 22 01:09:03 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 01:09:03 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius and Arthur (was Lucius' Influence) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221095456.031ade98@mailhost.jorsm.com> <5.1.1.6.0.20021221164904.03419c88@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <015501c2a956$b8d8e920$618701d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48669 > Carol wrote: > > > And more > > > to the point, who would ever think to raid the Malfoy manor for *Muggle* > > > artifacts? That is what Arthur's raids are all about, after all. Or have > > > I missed something? Could those raids for Muggle things be a cover up for > > > what the MOM is really looking for -- evidence of Dark Arts? > > Irene answered: > >AFAIR, it's the misuse of muggle artefacts. That would be stuff like > >Voldemort's diary - ordinary muggle-made thing filled with dark magic. > > How do we know the diary was made by Muggles? Cause it says on page 173 of my copy of CoS: Harry turned to the back cover of the book and saw the printed name of a newsagent's in Vauxhall Road, London. "He must've been Muggle-born", said Harry thoughtfully, "to have bought a diary from Vauxhall Road..." It looks like a wizarding book in the movie, but it should not. > Irene also wrote: > >I think it would appeal to Lucius very much to put spells on some Muggle > >objects and release them to unsuspecting muggles, and it falls into > >Arthur's department to deal with. Ironically it would require from Lucius > >better understanding of how muggle objects work than Arthur has. > > That is, of course, possible, but this kind of Muggle baiting seems rather > beneath Lucius. I'm not sure how this kind of muggle-baiting is any worse compared with what Lucius did during the World Cup? -- Irene From h_potter_uk at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 22 02:19:48 2002 From: h_potter_uk at yahoo.co.uk (h_potter_uk ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 02:19:48 -0000 Subject: Colors-McGonagall-Harry's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48670 Hi, I'm new to posting on the list too. I've been lurking behind paintings and whatnot for the past couple months before I decided to actually post something. I hope this works :) Silverdawn21 wrote: > Also, why are Harry (and Lily)'s eyes green? Why not blue, hazel, or > brown? Does JKR simply like green eyes, or is it a tie to > Voldemort? Or, does green not necessarily signify anything? I actually did some research a long, long time ago, when I first started reading the books in 1998, about the possiblilty of any color signifigance. One pretty interesting thing I found regarding a mythological reference was the signifigance of the "evil eye". It originally ment that the eye had power to cause harm at a glance (sort of like a basilisk in a way...). "In Latin countries a blue eye is thought to have strange powers; in the north a black eye is feared." With this, I immediately thought of Moody's magical blue eye. This selection also goes on to state that in Ireland, a green eye is thought to protect against malice, but spitting in a green eye will advert its influence. Pretty interesting stuff. So, yes, I think that the eye colors of characters in the books probably mean something. I'm not sure if JKR is actually using specific examples from mythology, but she has for other things. I should probably mention that this book was published in 1911. I think it might have come from the Hogwarts library... Hope this helped! Yours in Gryffindor, Jenny From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sun Dec 22 03:35:44 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 03:35:44 -0000 Subject: Lucius and Arthur (was Lucius' Influence) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221164904.03419c88@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48671 Irene wrote > I think it would appeal to Lucius very much to put spells on some > Muggle > objects and release them to unsuspecting muggles, and it falls into > Arthur's department to deal with. Ironically it would require from > Lucius > better understanding of how muggle objects work than Arthur has. And Carol responded: > That is, of course, possible, but this kind of Muggle baiting seems > rather > beneath Lucius. I just can't imagine Lucius tinkering with Muggle > artifacts to unleash on unsuspecting Muggles. Me: I agree with Irene; I think this is exactly the sort of thing he would enjoy. After all, he was a part of the mob at the World Cup that decided to levitate Muggles just for the heck of it (or so it's implied). Causing random mischief for Muggles may not be his primary concern, but I definitely think he would enjoy it should he get the chance. Carol again: > I wonder about this. Is it only being from an old wizarding >family? I > find it pretty disturbing that a man like Lucius who had been >associated > with Death Eaters could have, in such a short time, regained such a > high > level of influence. In fact, I find it disturbing that many of the > once > accused DE's reached the positions they have (Lucius, Bagman...) Me: >From Sirius' description in "Padfoot Returns", it seems like it was nearly impossible to determine exactly who was acting under Imperius and who was acting by free will. But we also have evidence that people were brought to trial (Bagman) or even immediately imprisoned (Sirius) based on little evidence or complete hearsay. As far as we know, Lucius was never formally accused (no evidence of a trial thus far). I take this to mean there was no evidence that he WASN'T acting under Imperius. He must have been pretty convincing to completely avoid people like Crouch. Because the Malfoy's are repeatedly described as a powerful, old family, I've always assumed that Lucius held quite a bit of power before the rise of Voldemort. I'm sure the Ministry of Magic, especially people like Fudge who were determined to get everything back to normal, were desperate to believe a powerful man like Lucius Malfoy when he said he was being controlled by Imperio. The Weasleys believe that Lucius was truly a Death Eater, but this doesn't seem to be the majority opinion. Most Ministry members truly believe that Lucius was innocent. As far as Bagman is concerned, I don't believe he was evil. He was a foolish idiot in the wrong place at the wrong time, and this is what most people in the Wizarding World seem to believe as well. I believe he was a popular sports icon who, in his retirement, managed to gain a government position based soley on his popularity. This phenomenon is all too common in our society; I don't see why it's difficult to accept it in the Wizarding World. Carol once more: > And if it IS > a cover up, does this say something about what Arthur's true job at > the MOM > is? I firmly believe that Arthur is far more than what he appears > to be > (as is Molly). ... > I keep wondering about Arthur...and Molly. Why does Arthur have to > work > late nights and weekends? Are charmed Muggle artifacts THAT >important that > things can't wait? Me: Yes, they are. The number one concern of the Wizarding World (besides stopping an insane evil overlord from regaining power) is to keep their society a secret from Muggles. This is not a nine to five job; even tiny things like shrinking keys could prove disastrous if a Muggle discovered the truth. I believe that Arthur is, at the moment, exactly what he seems: a low level ministry employee with connections in high places. This puts him in an ideal position to be important in the upcoming fight against Voldemort. My theory on Molly and Arthur's normalcy can be found in a previous post; I'm operating on two hours sleep right now and don't feel like searching for it, but it's there somewhere. :) - Corinth, the anti-conspiracy theorist From snidget_the_smooshable at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 02:53:03 2002 From: snidget_the_smooshable at hotmail.com (snidgety ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 02:53:03 -0000 Subject: Kitsunes in Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48672 Hey, I'm Snidget. Well, I'm here mostly to suggest a theory, so insane, off-the-wall, impossible, implausible, far-fetched, swarming with holes, inconsistancies, and magical robots that you wil have no choice but to roll your eyes and then have me locked away for my own good. *takes a deep breath* Okay, it all started whilst I was hanging about at the Velan Controlled Library, generally bugging people, much like I'm doing here. So, I came upon a link to a site about kitsunes. http://www.comnet.ca/~foxtrot/kitsune/kitsune1.htm . Now, as you may or may not know, a Kitsune is a fox spirit/demon which originated in India, and was adopted by Japan. But as I read it, I started to notice some striking similarities between a Kitsune and everybody's favorite potions teacher. And yes, this is the part where you should be getting a straight- jacket ready. Okay, quotes from the site: "Kitsune are notorious for seeing a weakness in someone, and aggravating the weakness, until others see it." That cerainly sounds Snapey to me. This would be most obvious in Neville and how Sev treats him. He knows Neville is bad at potions, and he does everything in his power to make it more obvious. "Kitsune are also a victim of their own feelings. A kitsune's emotions can cause them harm, or distract them. The Sin of Regret can even kill a kitsune outright." Severus seems to regret being a Death Eater. Perhaps this is becuaseit's actually killing him, and only by making it up to the Light side, will it stop? "Kitsune do not accept aid from those who are not willing. Those who wish to aid a kitsune, must do so of their own free will. Kitsune are very loath to ask for help..." No real example for this one, but we've never heard him ask for help. When Filch helps him with his leg, Sev didn't seem to be in a very good mood. He probably didn't want to ask for help, but he had too. Just an idea. "Kitsune are emotional and very vengeful. Kitsune will lose their temper at the slightest provocation. Once someone has earned a kitsune's enmity, the kitsune will begin enacting revenge that can become quite extreme." I think we all know the examples for this one. To begin with, it's quite obvious Sev has a short fuse. The entire Shrieking Shack scene, many potion classes. He also seems totally hellbent on making Remus miserable throughout Prisoner of Azkaban, and was so vengeful in the Shrieking Shack that he threatened both Remus and Sirius with delivery to the dementors. "Freedom is very important to the kitsune. They do not accept being forced into something they do not wish, and do not like being bound or trapped." Being a Death Eater is certainly being bound into something, isn't it? This might be a reason he left Voldemort. He had no idea what he was getting into. "Kitsune follow their own code of ethics, though they adapt the morals of those around them, more for the sake of being accepted than for any other reason ... If someone offends what a kitsune considers 'correct', they can become evil, malicious, and disruptive.If someone behaves according to their ethics, they will become polite, kind, and helpful." Now, here's where Harry comes in. Obviously, in the school, rule- breaking is supposedly considered "immoral." This may explain is animosity towards Harry and towards Sirius when they were in school together. --- >From other sources: "It is also thought that elemental Kitsune reflect their element in their personalities/characteristics." The 13 elements of Kitsunes are Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, Stone, Plant, The Sea, Light, Thunder, Dark, Spirit, Time, and Music. Seems to me, the most fitting for Sev would be Dark, or Void. Dark eyes, dark hair, dark humor! Seems it would fit. He's also pretty broody, if you ask me. Dark kitsune are also known for causing trouble. Legend says that a single Kitsune, known as Hua-yang, caused the collapse of two Chinese empires. Now, of course there are contradictory parts of kitsune lore that might dispove my theory. Such as kisune being family-oriented, and that male kitsunes are not overly so. (Though, Sev isn't exactly described as macho, is he?) Well, that's pretty much it. I await your throwing of tomatoes. And I do realise this is too incredibly far-fetched to ever happen, but boy, it sure does make for some good fanfiction ideas. ^_^ Now, these characteristics can be used to describe people on a regular basis, of course, but the apperance of a Kitsune is entirely possible. My theory is pretty far-fetched, but J.K. has thrown us completely off course more than once, and I think such a long time without a new book is making the lines between fanon and canon blur. And don't act like you've never heard a worse theory, cause they're out there. -Snidget From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 04:38:53 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 04:38:53 -0000 Subject: FILK, TBAY, SHIP: A Christmas miscellany from the Safe House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48673 I know my name is on the post, but I want to say this TBAY has been a team effort between all three of MDDT from the text to the filks. I?m just the one that received the grunt job of posting it. Enjoy. ---- Dedicated to the Magical Dishwasher Defense Team Cheerleading Squad We know who you are and deeply appreciate each one of you. ---- Ah, Christmas time at The Bay. Not quite as ideal as a Victorian Dickens' version, but hey - we try. In the Safe House, Melody sat cross-legged on top of the kitchen counter listening to Pip. The freshly cleaned out bowl of cookie batter was balanced in her lap, and she was attempting to scrape out the last little bits. Sneeky was currently scampering across the tile to retrieve the freshly baked cookies from the oven and place them next to their cooling brothers and sisters. Pulling together the ingredients to make the last cup of icing, Pip asked, "I wonder if Snape ever bought Lily a Christmas present [1]? What would it have been? Some fiendishly complex potion, I imagine. Or perhaps he did a Hermione." "A Hermione?" Melody asked looking up from her excavation of the cookie dough bowl. "You know. When she buys Harry the Broomstick Servicing Kit [2]. Snape would have actually thought about what *Lily* wanted, rather than buying her the sort of present *he'd* like," Pip explained. "I bet James would be quite unhappy with Snape then," Melody said. "Not necessarily. The students receive their presents at the end of their bed. Lily could have hidden it from James, which doesn't need to suggest Snape and her being lovers behind James' back. James could be jealous of their friendship or misunderstand it, so she *had* to hide the gift from him. Of course if he found out about this gift Lily loved so much, his feud with Snape would be fueled further," Pip said deep in theory thought and stirring the icing absentmindedly. All this talk about Christmas made Melody think of something rather needed during this season. "Pip, are we going to get a tree?" she asked licking the spatula. Pip looked up with glazed eyes and blinked a bit at Melody. After a moment, she finally realized the girl had changed subjects and said, "But of course. Christmas trees are *very* important in a Harry Potter Christmas." She returned to the icing and mixed the drops of color for decorating. So far, they had the tradition red, blue, yellow, and green but experimented a bit and got a lovely shade of violet and a rather amazing cerulean. Though, in the process, they accumulated a rather disturbing light grey color icing. "How do you figure?" Melody asked. "Christmas trees are so important that they are mentioned in *all* the books," Pip explained. "Even Goblet of Fire?" Melody asked, "I don't remember one in there." "Oh yes. Even there. The Great Hall had the usual twelve Christmas trees, and they were decorated with everything from luminous holly berries to real, hooting, golden owls.' [3]" Pip said stirring the icing cups. "Yeah, McGonagall and Flitwick do seem to like the theme tree idea of decorating," Melody mused. "In Harry's first year, the twelve Christmas trees were decorated in two groups with some decorated with tiny icicles and others glittering with hundreds of candles [4]. Then the next two years, McG and Flit went for a unified look with frost trees for year two [5] and glittering, golden stars for year three [6]. I guess they like variety year by year. Well that or showing off their skills." The cookie dough bowl was completely scraped clean, so the still cross-legged Melody leaned over and deposited it in the sink. From her bent over state, Melody rested on her elbows and watched Sneeky pile the cookies on plates. "So given that Harry has *twelve* Christmas trees every year, can we get twelve too?" Melody asked glancing at Pip hopefully. "Now we may have the biggest house on the bay, but we don't have *that* much room. I think one is enough for us," Pip said putting down her wooden spoon. Melody frowned, "But how would we get even one? Does George also have a Christmas tree tent shop? He does seem to have a rather entrepreneurial spirit." "We just go out and chop our own Mel," Pip explained filling the decorating bags with icing. "Here - help decorate the iced biscuits, and don't worry about the tree. Things have a way of magically happening around here." Melody stared blankly at Pip. "We didn't make biscuits; we made sugar cookies. And why would we want to ice biscuits anyway? That doesn't sound too appetizing." Sneaky laughed. "Miss Melody you is forgetting. Mistress Pip is British. Her British 'iced biscuits' *are* your American 'sugar cookies.'" "Oh - that makes more sense. Ok," Melody perked up and took one of the decorating bags as they all drew pictures on the cookies. Sneeky was in the middle of creating a rather fetching werewolf-in-a-violet-dress on her cookie, when a huge crash was heard outside the door followed by a gruff voice. "Help...please." "Coming Mister Wolf," Sneeky called as she reached the backdoor and waved her hand to open it. The door swung open to the sight of a thousand little pine tree branches. Grey Wolf pushed the tree inside, carried it to the main living room, and leaned it against the wall. Pip and Melody looked at each other and smiled. "See-" Pip said raising her arms in a right angle frame, "a tree." Melody was bouncing on the counter. "Grey, you're back, and you brought us a tree. Where did you find it?" "I wanted to bring you both a Christmas present," Grey Wolf smiled brushing off the little pine needles from his fur. "And I found it up North, of course. I was happily hunting when I can upon this tree spotlighted by a sunbeam in a clearing. It looked so perfect that I *had* to bring it here. Now, if you'll excuse me and let me clean up a bit..." He disappeared back to his room as Pip and Melody used all their strength to balance the tree in the little Christmas tree holder Sneeky found in the cabinet. After a few precarious moments that involved many scrapes and a near topple, the tree was safely in its new home. The two women collapsed on the couch as Grey Wolf walked back in the room tying his silk tie. "You could of waited for me," he laughed. "Ah, I love that smell," Melody said breathing in deeply. "And it barely fits in the room Grey," Pip praised. "Well in Potterverse often the size of the present shows how people feel about one another. Look at the presents the Dursleys have given Harry. A series of gifts starting with Vernon's old socks and leading to a single tissue [7]. Rather puny and insignificant. This trend in gift size is also continued with Molly Weasley's Easter gift to Hermione. She received the smallest egg when Molly was annoyed with her [8]. Therefore, I would not want to bring a Charlie Brown Christmas tree here and have you both think I do not care deeply for my teammates, so thus - a huge tree," Grey Wolf concluded with an equally huge smile. Pip and Melody just smiled back as they all stared at the bare tree. After a few minutes, Melody was the first to break the comfortable silence. "Have we any ornaments? Lights? A star? Seems this huge gift tree deserves the proper dressings." Pip twitched her mouth. "I think we have decorations. In the attic most likely. Sneeky do you know..." but she trailed off. Sneeky was currently up in the tree hiding behind the branches. "Sneeky! What's wrong?" Pip asked flabbergasted. A small hand peeked out from the branches and pointed out at the doorway where Coney had just crossed to enter the room. "Ah, Sneeky, you are not still afraid of Coney, are you?" Grey Wolf asked as he went over to scoop up the little bunny. "How I have missed this little tyke," Grey cooed as he threw the bunny up in the air and caught her. Coney looked in sheer bliss. "That rabbit is demented Mister Wolf," Sneeky squeaked a little muffled by the branches. Melody just shook her head and walked over to the tree. "Sneeky come down. I need you to show me where the Christmas decorations are," she said trying to coax the house elf. Sneeky was not budging though. "In the cupboard under the stairs," she said pointing her small hand toward the area. Melody turned to Pip. "We have a cupboard under the stairs? Isn't that kind of twisted?" "Well, this house came with a sense of irony," Pip smiled and followed Melody to the cupboard. They dragged the big box marked 'Christmas stuff' to the middle of the floor. Grey Wolf was currently rocking Coney in his arms and the bunny seemed to be purring. Depositing the box next to the tree, Pip looked up at the quite nested Sneeky. "You know, we can't decorate this thing if she is in it." "Sneeky's *not* coming out till that rabbit is gone," Sneeky said with a stamp of her foot causing a few needles to fall to the hardwood floor. "Well, this is jolly," Melody sighed. "Wait," Pip said as a plan formed, "let's go caroling." "What?" Melody exclaimed looking up curiously at Pip. "How can *that* help?" Pip gave Melody a piercing look and said, "Because, Dumbledore lead the Christmas crew in a round of his favorite carols in Chamber of Secrets [9], and he also is the one that said, 'Ah music. A magic beyond all we do here.' [10] I think his brand of Christmas cheer might help here if you follow me." Pip darted her eyes to the treed Sneeky. Melody's eyes widened when she realizing what Pip was trying to do. She can be a bit slow sometimes. "Yeah, we *should* go caroling. That way, you and I can show off the filks we wrote. And Grey?" "Yeah," he called looking up from tickling one of Coney's big feet completely oblivious to what had happened so far. "You can sing, right?" Pip asked. "Quite well in fact," he beamed. Melody bounced onto the couch and leaned over the back. "Want to go caroling on the bay with us?" "Sure," he agreed, "but I don't know the words to your filks. It might be quite something to hear 'What Child is This?' sung by a huge werewolf who only knows half the words. And what if one of the list poltergeists come up behind me and fill in the gaps with lyrics of his/her own invention, all of which would probably be very rude indeed [11]. You don't want me sounding like one of the suits of armor at Hogwarts, now do you?" "Well, no, but we do have them written down Grey. You can just read the sheet music. You can read, can't you?" Melody asked cutting her eyes over to him with a sly smile. Grey narrowed his eyes at the girl and gave a short, "Humph." Pip laughed quietly and turned back to the treed Sneeky. "Sneeky, we are all going caroling. Don't you want to come? You can sing that song you've been working so hard to perfect. I'm sure the bay would love to hear it," Pip encouraged as she winked to Melody. Sneeky stuck out her head smiling broadly. "You think, Mistress?" "But of course Sneeky. You have a lovely soprano," Pip said without any hint of sarcasm, which Melody and Grey Wolf knew was quite hard for her to accomplish. "Ok," Sneeky agreed, "but that rabbit stays here." Melody looked helpless between the elf and the bunny. "I can't leave Coney tied up in here in the Safe House! All on her own! At Christmas! [12a]" Pip, Grey and Sneeky looked at each other. They had never seen eye to eye with Melody about what she called 'a cute harmless bunny' and Sneeky called 'a terrifying monster'. On the other hand, there didn't seem to be any particular harm in Coney. In fact, by the Safe House's usual standards, she was positively cute. [12b] Grey Wolf looked up at his little safe house member and over at the scared house elf. "Well, I have an idea. Sneeky, you can ride on my shoulders, and Mel, you can keep an eye on Coney. Fair enough, Sneeky?" The elf eyed the bunny but relaxed. "Yes, Mister Wolf. Sneeky likes that idea very much." For the next few moments, the safe house was all in a tizzy. Coats, hats, and scarves were being found but with no mittens. Sneeky was refusing to come out of the tree still, so she could not help find the missing pairs. The sheet music was in a neat pile until Coney decided it would make a wonderful place to - well - deposit her own brand of Christmas cheer. Lucky Pip had the originals in her room, so after the bunny was scolded a bit, the mittens were found, and Sneeky crept onto Grey's shoulder, they were all off to spread Christmas cheer to The Bay. "Where should we stop first?" Melody asked racing Coney down the road. "I think the Pink Flamingo would make for a good start," Pip suggested. Grey nodded. "Yeah, drunks are very forgiving." The clan meandered their way to their destination. The weather was just right for strolling and caroling after all. Reaching the doorstep, the team gathered themselves around. Melody hummed a note, and the quartet began with their first filk carol called 'What Child is This?' to the tune of the RL carol of the same name. ----- http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~av359/xmas/carols/child.html What child is this who's laid to rest On Dursley's doorstep sleeping? Whom Petunia greets with fear and shrieks While Vernon sits a weeping. Refrain: This, this is Potter's child, Whom witches guard and wizards smile: Haste, haste to bring him safe The boy the son of Lily. Why lies he in such mean estate Where Dursley barely feed him? Good Harry must endure this fate For all is veiled and dim. Refrain. So bring him letters, hope, and joy Come Hagrid to claim him. The boy who lived now found his place Let wands and brooms en-throne him. Refrain. ----- The patrons must not of been drunk enough yet, because they just golf-clapped their efforts. "Hmm, I suggest moving on," Melody said thinly glaring at the unenthusiastic audience and bending over to scoop up Coney. The bunny was currently engaged in relandscaping George's quaint flowerbed. "I hope George was not *too* fond of those pansies," Melody quietly observed with a bit of amusement. "Cindy is always fun," Grey Wolf commented. "Seeing that she is not here, I say the Big Bang should be our next stop." "I agree," Pip said and turned to lead them to the anchored destroyer. "Um, Pip. How are we going to get to the Big Bang?" Melody asked noticing the anchored destroyer was too far out to be reached by their voices. "Transportation has already been arranged," Pip winked. A submarine surfaced next to the dock, and the team clamored onto the deck. Sneeky gave the edge of the submarine a frightened look and hid her eyes completely against Grey Wolf's mane [13]. Grey chuckled. "I think she's out for this round of songs." The three grabbed onto the railing as the submarine moved over to the Big Bang and settled within earshot. "So, should we just start singing?" Melody asked. "No, we should get Cindy's attention," Pip said scratching her knit hat. "Grey, you do the honors." "Alright," Grey Wolf nodded. "Cover your ears. CINDY!!" A rather disgruntle Cindy opened up on of the portholes and stuck out her head. "WHAT!? Oh, my!" "Hi, Cindy," Pip beamed at almost eye level. "We came to carol you." Cindy snorted at the sight of them but smiled, "Ah, I feel so honored. Don't think anyone has *ever* caroled the Big Bang. Let me get on deck." Cindy closed the window and the sound of footsteps was heard from within. A door opened and Cindy came out with a lawn chair in one hand and a Christmas mug in another and arranged herself. "Ready captain?" Melody called up. "Knock me dead guys," Cindy said raising her mug. "All right. Our selection is a filk named 'When the Wizards Stayed' to the carol of 'While Shepherds Watched,'" Melody announced and hummed the starting note. ---- http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~av359/xmas/carols/shep.html When wizards stayed indoors at night All quaking in their boots A flock of owls came flying round One gave three mighty hoots. "Fear not" said he (for they were scared the times were troubled, mind). Glad tidings of great joy I bring To you and mugglekind. In Godric's Hollow this last night, A child of Potter line, Made Voldemort cash in his chips. A scar shall be his sign. The amazing babe you will not find, Hagrid took him away; The Dursley's now will have a shock, He's on their doorstep laid." Thus spake the owl and straight forthwith Appeared a mighty throng Of wizards shooting fireworks off And singing happy songs. "All glory to the Potter child As wizards will have peace. For Voldemort has cashed his chips. Our joy will never cease." ---- All three bowed as Cindy rapturously clapped. "That was marvelous. Just marvelous," she called. Pip blushed. "Thanks Cindy. If you want to follow us, we are going to the dock next to finish our caroling." "No, no. I'm quite comfortable here," Cindy said contemplating her options over her mug. "But I might raise anchor and move that way. Yes, I think I shall do that." "Cool. We shall see you there," Melody called as Cindy disappeared back under deck. Melody then looked at Pip and asked, "How do we tell this sub we want to go back?" but as Melody said the words, the sub lurched back towards the dock. "You could of warned us," she yelled stomping on the metal sub. When the sub reached the dock, they all jumped off and ran from the sub. Melody placed Coney down in the grass by the dock and the three settled by the lamplight to start with their third carol. "This is our third Harry Potter carol named 'Halloween Night' and is based on the traditional carol 'Silent Night,'" Pip announced. She took the honor of humming the first note as all four began. ---- http://www.christmas-carols.net/carols/silent-night.html Silent night; Halloween night All was calm; all was bright Round yon corner Dark Lord peeped In the door 'cause Peter did sneak Of the house where the Potters hide, So Alohomora he cried. Silent night; Halloween night Dark Lord framed 'gainst the light James yelled, "Take Harry and run" "I'll hold him off, just save our son" A duel ensued and James fell dead Voldemort turned to Harry's small bed. Silent night; Halloween night Harry's crib, Voldie's next sight Lily stood protesting his path. Threw herself 'tween her child and his wrath A love charm she left on Harry A pure gift he'll always carry. Silent night; Halloween night Voldie laughed at Lily's plight. Harry alone before him now A wand was aimed at his head and brow. The curse words bounce and Voldie was torn And the boy who lived was born. ---- The crowd that had gathered gave the group a rather respectable round of applause as the safe house members beamed and thanked them. Sneeky leaned over on Grey Wolf's shoulder and tugged at Pip's coat. "Mistress, can I sing my song now?" she squeaked. "Oh course Sneeky. You can stand on that park bench there," Pip said as Grey Wolf reached up to lower Sneeky. "Mel, watch Coney now. We don't want her scaring Sneeky in the middle of the song," Grey whispered to Melody. Melody nodded and pointed to a patch of grass where Coney was currently sleeping. "Seems the excitement tuckered her out. Good thing probably since I have not broken her of that biting thing yet," Melody whispered back. Sneeky fussed over her tea towel and stood up straight taking a deep breath. "I'm ready Mistress." she said with as much confidence as she could muster. "Ok, Sneeky. Ladies and gentlemen, we have one last carol for you all tonight. It is called 'The Holly and the Yew Tree' and is based on the carol 'The Holly and the Ivy.' Verses sung by safe house's own house elf Sneeky," said Pip with flair. ---- http://www.christmas-carols.net/holly-ivy.html The Holly and the Yew Tree, When they are both full grown, Of all the trees that are in the wood, The Holly bears the crown. Refrain: O, the rising of the sun, And the coming of the Stag, The playing of such merry Quidditch, Sweet singing in the feasts. The Holly bears a blossom, As white as lily flow'r, And Lily bore our Harry lad, To somehow save us all. Refrain. The Holly bears a berry, As red as any blood, And Lily died for Harry lad, Whose blood contains her good. Refrain. The Holly bears a prickle, As sharp as any thorn, And Lily knew that Harry lad, Faced many painful morns. Refrain. The Holly bears a bark, As bitter as the gall, And Lily lost sweet Harry lad, His life was more to her. Refrain. The Holly and the Yew Tree, When they are both full grown, Of all the trees that are in the wood, The Holly bears the crown. Refrain. ---- The crowd clapped enthusiastically and gave them a standing ovation. Sneeky bowed with tears in her eyes. Pip, Grey, and Melody were taking their bows when Coney hopped up to the bench with a flower in her mouth. Sneeky, so taken back, accepted the flower and even timidly stroked the bunny's head ever so quickly. "Seems miracles can happen at Christmas," Melody said quietly to Pip and Grey as they gathered around Sneeky and Coney. "God bless us. One and all," Sneeky squeaked. -------Wishing all of HPfGU a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year------ ---------from Pip!Squeak, Grey Wolf, and Melody: aka the MDDT--------- All references from American hardback: [1] SHIP reference: LOLLIPOPS [2] canon fact: PoA, Ch1, pg. 12. [3] paraphrase: GoF, Ch22, pg. 395. [4] canon fact: PS/SS Ch12, pg. 196. [5] canon fact: CoS, Ch12, pg. 212. [6] canon fact: PoA, Ch11, pg. 222. [7] canon fact: PS/SS Ch3, pg. 43 -&- GoF Ch23, pg. 407. [8] canon reference: GoF, Ch28, pg. 548 -&- Ch.31, pg. 619. [9] canon reference: CoS, Ch12, pg. 212. [10] direct quote: PS/SS, Ch7, pg. 128. [11] canon parody: GoF, Ch22, pg. 395. [12] '12a' and '12b' are canon parody: PoA, Ch11, pg. 218. [13] canon parody: GoF, Ch8, pg. 99. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 04:43:14 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 04:43:14 -0000 Subject: Fluffy Dog (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48674 Fluffy Dog To the tune of the theme from Underdog (animated cartoon series 1964- 73) Dedicated to Pippin Hear the original at: http://www.toontracker.com/realaudio/ttra60-1.htm FLUFFY: (spoken, first head) There's no need to fear! (spoken, 2nd & 3rd head) Fluffy Dog is here! TRIO (music): If there's a stone you much regard And you want canines as a guard Don't bother scouring junkyards Or try to use a Saint Bernard Call Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! Rolling mad eyes, growls of thunder Triplicate heads love to sunder Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! If you enjoy Russian Roulette And smoking packs of cigarettes While driving 90 in Corvettes Then you'll rejoice in Hagrid's pet Named Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! Rolling mad eyes, thundering growl Snape had better throw in the towel Fluffy Dog! Fluffy Dog! - CMC (who used to have a Golden named Buffy, quickly nicknamed Fluffy, with only a single head) HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dicentra at xmission.com Sun Dec 22 05:24:14 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63 ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 05:24:14 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry's Dream of the Turban Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48675 Upon rereading the first book again, something jumped out at me. The dream that Harry has right after the Sorting is interesting. (It's at the end of "The Sorting Hat.") He dreams that Quirrell's turban is on his head, and it's telling him to transfer back into Slytherin because it's his "destiny." Was that Harry's mind messing with him, or was there another factor involved? I've dreamed up this little ficlet to demonstrate who might have been behind that dream and why. ********** "It's a good thing I don't need to breathe," he thought viciously. "The fool wraps this thing tightly enough to crush his skull, and he's not terribly particular about keeping it washed, either." It occurred to him that these little "oversights" might be intentional, and he vowed revenge at the nearest opportunity. But first, the work at hand. He heard the creaking of the doors above the din of the students' chatter, heard the shuffling of nervous feet, the scrape of wood on the floor. Then the room went completely silent for a few moments before... "Oh, you may not think I'm pretty But don't judge on what you see I'll eat myself if you can find A smarter hat than me...." He mentally cringed at the singing. Why the dratted thing had to go through this miserable ritual every year was beyond all reason. It made it that much harder to concentrate on what was happening beyond the teachers' table. He would have preferred, of course, to *see* what was happening, but he had long since learned to comprehend what was happening without relying on his senses. He relaxed slightly and let his mind drift over the tops of the students' heads. Oh yes, there they were: his followers' pathetic spawn. "Erstwhile followers," he thought bitterly. "But soon enough I'll be dealing with *that*." There was a Malfoy, a Crabbe, a Goyle, a Nott... Surely, they'd welcome the opportunity to acquire more power than their fathers had. And perhaps, they'd even be the instruments by which he avenged himself of their sires' disloyalty. He smirked inwardly at the thought of creating a covert following here at Hogwarts, right under Dumbledore's nose, but then something caught his attention. Something unexpected. Something *wonderful*. It was a Parselmouth. As the singing finished and the Sorting began, he focused all his attention on one student, one very frightened first-year who obviously did not realize that his destiny was about to unfold on this very stage. "A Parselmouth," he gloated. He thought of how useful this boy would be to him. He could finally open the Chamber again and continue Salazar Slytherin's noble work. He could train up this boy to be every bit as powerful as he, and together they'd finish what he'd started some two decades ago. The hat would of course place him in House Slytherin, where he'd be trained up by a Dark Wizard. And then he'd be his... "Potter, Harry," McGonagall called out. There was a murmur from the students. "*Potter*, did she say?" "*The* Harry Potter?" And before he knew it, the Parselmouth approached the chair and sat down. He cursed so furiously that his host began to twitch. "Calm down, you imbecile," he hissed through the cloth. "You'll give us away." His host spasmed once more before forcing himself to stop twitching. He then turned his attention back to the student on the stool. What a vile irony this was. "His" Parselmouth was none other than Harry Potter, the mewling brat who had reduced him to a mere shadow ten years ago. He had long vowed to destroy young Potter the first time he got the chance--destroy him so thoroughly and so definitively that it would never again be said that Lord Voldemort had been defeated by a *child,* and the son of a Mudblood at that. But then, there was more than one way to destroy Harry Potter, he mused. Harry Potter, son of Muggle-lovers and symbol of the defeat of Dark Magic, standing at Lord Voldemort's side as his most loyal and powerful follower. Now *that* would dishearten even Dumbledore. Maybe his plans could still go forward. "Say Slytherin, you filthy rag. Say Slytherin and get on with it," he thought furiously. But the hat remained silent. And from the Parselmouth, he sensed something quite unexpected. The Parselmouth was resisting. "That can't be," he thought. "No one questions the Sorting Hat." But the little brat continued to resist the hat, until finally it shouted "GRYFFINDOR," the hall erupted in cheers, and he sensed his prized prot?g? sit down with Muggle-lovers and Mudbloods. "He'll live to regret this," he thought, "but he won't live long." As the Sorting ended and the feast began, he mulled over his plans for this rebellious young Parselmouth. "Perhaps it's still not too late to persuade him to reconsider," he thought, as his host prattled away with his neighbor, his head turning away from the students so that Voldemort was facing them. He felt the attention of young Potter fix on the back of the turban. "Curse you," he thought, wishing he had a wand. A good Imperius curse would be just the thing. Or a Cruciatus. Instead, he sent a burning thought toward the lad--"Never resist me again"--that found its mark: the scar he'd left behind on Potter's forehead. Later that night, as his host slept on his side, snoring fitfully, he let his mind wander through the castle to Gryffindor tower. He found the Parselmouth asleep, and he began to whisper into his mind: "Go back to Slytherin; it is your destiny." But even sleeping the Parselmouth insisted on resisting. Even in his dreams he rebelled against Lord Voldemort. "Very well," he thought. "If you will not bend, I have no choice but to follow my original plan. I will destroy you, Harry Potter, no matter the cost. Even if I have to die to kill you, I will do it. Because as long as you exist in this world, Lord Voldemort will not rest." ************* IIRC, Voldemort never tries to persuade Harry to join him (except in TMTMNBN)--he's just hell-bent on killing him. But that dream seems to me to be an attempt by someone to influence him. And since Voldemort was at the Sorting, maybe he did it. --Dicentra, with apologies to JKR From englishatjodie at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 10:24:43 2002 From: englishatjodie at hotmail.com (samnjodie ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:24:43 -0000 Subject: H/H vs R/H Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48676 Penny said: "His feelings at 14 are unlikely to affect what he might think or want in his 20s or 30s." K, but I'm just speculating on what I think will happen in the world of the books. By the end of book seven, they will all still only be seventeen, and whoever they happen to have been in love with when they were fourteen will still be relevant. It would be absurdly longsighted to try to speculate now where any of them will be in their twenties or thirties. It's likely they won't even be anywhere close to where they are at the end of book seven, forget now when they are just past book four. In the world of the books - and it is highly likely that any romance that J.K. intends to include in the series will have already been alluded to - the evidence points away from a H/H relationship and towards a relationship between Harry and Cho. It also points (ambiguously, but still) towards a relationship between Hermione and Ron. If there is any relationship between any of them at all. > Jodie :) From splinched at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 07:36:39 2002 From: splinched at hotmail.com (eudaemonia_splinched ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 07:36:39 -0000 Subject: Ship: H/H vs. R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48677 I wrote: > Additionally, after Cedric's death, how much of a fan of Harry will she be? ... [snip] CK wrote: >Doubt I'm covering any new ground here, so I'll be brief. I think this goes the other way - Harry will have difficulty being around Cho because of what happened to Cedric. Sometimes it's easier to forgive someone else, and much harder to forgive yourself. Oh no doubt about it on Harry's part -- I totally agree on your briefing. I was just proposing a possibility of why Cho would be reluctant to engage in a closer relationship with him. Cheers, Eu From corsa808 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 07:48:18 2002 From: corsa808 at yahoo.com (infiniT ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 07:48:18 -0000 Subject: Lucius' Influence/Muggle Magic/Barty Jr!Moody Teaching Harry/Rita Skeeter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48678 Carol said: "Lucius is concerned about the MoM conducting a raid on his house since in GoF he is trying to sell stuff he'd rather not have found in his house should there be a raid." -and- "Could those raids for Muggle things be a cover up for what the MOM is really looking for -- evidence of Dark Arts?" That raid thing didn't really pan out did it? I'm wondering as I was reading that maybe we'll see more about this in the future, now that Voldemort is back, and we'll be seeing more evidence of the Dark Arts? Or was it just a minor detail? hmmm...I mean, I can understand the MoM wanting to check things out every once in a while but this just *screams* "Cops," like they had reason to suspect (other than Lucius being a known DE) that something was going on. I'm sorry, I can't remember who said: > Religious magic and magic in HP books > are obviously not the same magic, but because we > use the same word, such conflicts may arise. very brief so as to avoid OT and Banned Topics and Howlers, oh my!: I'm thinking of Pagans when I see the term religious magic and they generally spell it "magick" so as to avoid being compared to pulling- rabbit-from-hat magic, and--in this case--HP magic, and possibly therefore avoiding confusion/conflicts. Just my 2 cents... On Barty Jr-as-Moody Teaching Harry: I am having a hard time thinking that Voldemort, with all of his power, couldn't know about Priori Incantatem. ....that's all I have to say about that...but... At the end of GoF, when Barty Jr. was given the Veritaserum, he mentions the Marauder's Map and says that Harry saw Crouch's name (in Snape's office) and just thought it was the Sr. That leads me to think that, even tho he was taking the Polyjuice Potion, his real name would show up on the Map, right? Maybe that can be filed under the burning question of how come nobody ever discovered PP's name as PP!Scabbers on the Map...Or did he not drink the Potion for a short time so that he really *was* Crouch Jr.? And finally: Has anyone thoutht that maybe Rita Skeeter's with the "Dark Side," since her articles seem to quote the Slytherins a lot? Or could it just be that she'll talk to anyone for a scoop, doesn't matter who, and they're too eager to give her dirt? t *having just finished re-reading the books and proud of the fact that she ventured out in ListLand to make her first post while being so new to the group* From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 12:38:03 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:38:03 -0000 Subject: Barty!Moody's plans for Harry - DADA teachers In-Reply-To: <1bb.b2f8412.2b360ae7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48679 I wrote: > ...why did Barty Jr. "teach" Harry to throw off the Imperius > > Curse? Eloise replied: > Since I only rehearsed my pet theory on this subject very recently, I shan't repeat it, but refer you to my post #48344. If you have any comments, I'd be > delighted to hear them. > > ~Eloise > > One of whose other pet theories is, as you may know, called Diana. :-) Me again: I read the post you've referenced above and I think your suppositions are quite good. I wondered along those lines as well, but had forgotten that Karkaroff and the other Durmstrang students would have been an unknown entity to Barty!Crouch and might have imperiled his evil plan for Harry. If Harry *had been* susceptible to the Imperius Curse, then he would have been vulnerable to other Death Eaters unfamiliar with Voldemort's plan currently in play, or just plain nasty cheaters, who might have used the Imperius Curse against Harry to ensure he lost. Lupin in PoA was also straight forward with his students about how to fight against Dark Arts, but in his case, specifically against *Dark* creatures such as grindylows and hinkypunks, etc. Taken together, between the two of them, they provided some very valuable Dark Arts lessons to the students of Hogwarts. If the next rumored Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher is indeed Fleur Delacour, then I wonder what she'll add to the mix. The only thing I won't like about having her as the DADA teacher is the way her accent is written. It doesn't make for quick reading trying to decipher some of what she's saying. She'll also be the first DADA teacher that won't be actively reviled, disliked or disdainfully ignored by at least some portion of the students and/or professors. Of course, maybe I'm speaking too soon on this note... Diana From Lynx412 at aol.com Sun Dec 22 13:25:56 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 08:25:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius' Influence/Muggle Magic/Barty Jr!Moody Teaching Ha... Message-ID: <48.15cc0738.2b371764@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48680 In a message dated 12/22/02 7:46:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, corsa808 at yahoo.com writes: > I am having a hard time thinking that Voldemort, with all of his power, > couldn't know about Priori Incantatem. On that, I'm sure LV did know about Priori Incantatem, but...he had no reason to expect to experience it. He had, at that point, no way of knowing that his wand and Harry's shared a core. *That's* what triggered the effect. So, there's our would-be 'Evil Overlord' showing off to his underlings, and suddenly shaken by the last possible, rarest reaction he could have expected. That, plus his current just resurrected state, and his shock at seeing his victims, helped Harry there. I suspect that the fact that the feathers are Fawkes' probably helped, too. Fawkes seems to like Harry, or at least to know that DD wants him supported whenever possible. Is it possible that Fawkes has a link to LV's wand? Every time he has aided Harry, both in the Chamber and in the graveyard, LV was there and *handling* a wand with his tail feather. [Harry's in CoS and his own in GoF.] Such a link might explain DD's ability to counter LV. BTW, I wonder if there wasn't a reason, aside from JKR's confirming that those folks were really DEs that led LV to call certain DEs by name? After all Karkaroff states that most of the DEs didn't know who the others were. Was LV not-so-subtly exposing those, like Lucius, who got away with claiming they'd been Imperioed? After all, if they had been unwilling slaves, why would they have come this time? Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Dec 22 13:27:12 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:27:12 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry's Dream of the Turban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dicentra63 " wrote: > Upon rereading the first book again, something jumped out at me. The > dream that Harry has right after the Sorting is interesting. (It's at > the end of "The Sorting Hat.") He dreams that Quirrell's turban is on > his head, and it's telling him to transfer back into Slytherin because > it's his "destiny." > > Was that Harry's mind messing with him, or was there another factor > involved? I've dreamed up this little ficlet to demonstrate who might > have been behind that dream and why. > > > IIRC, Voldemort never tries to persuade Harry to join him (except in > TMTMNBN)--he's just hell-bent on killing him. But that dream seems to > me to be an attempt by someone to influence him. And since Voldemort > was at the Sorting, maybe he did it. > > --Dicentra, with apologies to JKR Well, I can easily imagine Voldemort wanting to influence Harry to his side -- it would be quite a coup for him, a huge moral victory. And it does seem that Vapormort had some ability to influence people's minds to some extent-- that's how he got Quirrel in the first place, right? -- so it stands to reason that Turban Voldy could do it too. I have two questions about this scenario, though. First, how would Voldemort know Harry's a Parselmouth? Nobody else knew until Harry talked to a snake in public. Of course, since Harry's Parselmouth ability supposedly comes from Voldemort himself, it's possible they have some sort of connection that enables Voldemort to tell... The second question is, what exactly was Voldemort hoping to accomplish with that dream? The dream-turban tells Harry he must switch to Slytherin house. But Harry's already been sorted, and it's not like first-years can switch houses at their whim. If the message was metaphorical, encouraging Harry to side with the Heir of Slytherin in his future, then it seems like a roundabout way of doing it -- eleven-year-old boys aren't much good at deciphering symbolism and metaphor; if you want them to do something, you have to tell them straight out. So what exactly was Voldemort trying to get Harry to do, so early in the game? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Lynx412 at aol.com Sun Dec 22 13:43:24 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 08:43:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius' Influence/Muggle Magic/Barty Jr!Moody Teaching Ha... Message-ID: <130.18ccd30b.2b371b7c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48682 In a message dated 12/22/02 7:46:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, corsa808 at yahoo.com writes: > At the end of GoF, when Barty Jr. was given the Veritaserum, he mentions the > Marauder's Map and says that Harry saw Crouch's name (in Snape's office) > and just thought it was the Sr. That leads me to think that, even tho he > was taking the Polyjuice Potion, his real name would show up on the Map, > right? Maybe that can be filed under the burning question of how come > nobody ever discovered PP's name as PP!Scabbers on the Map...Or did he not > drink the Potion for a short > time so that he really *was* Crouch Jr.? This is one of the most interesting questions up for debate here. I'm relatively new, too, and have gathered that it's been debated frequently. let me take a stab at it. If my theory has been used before, I apologize to anyone I've accidentally swiped it from... First, I wonder how the Twins *learned* to operate the Map. Then, with the revelation of PP/Wormtail's identity, I wondered if, perhaps, something [or someone] might have whispered a clue while the were dreaming one night... Then, I began to wonder about the Map itself. It seems to have several levels of use. The Map that becomes so useful to the Twins, the Trio, and then to Crouch!Moody. So, I wonder if, in fact the Map doesn't have a third level. What if MWPP set it up to conceal their names or their own positions? Perhaps there's a level that only one of the Marauders can activate. PP/Wormtail would have made sure to give the Twins only the level that would not reveal the Marauders. Lupin, however, would have used the level that would show the Marauders, since he like everyone else in the WW believed that Black was a villain. the Map gave him the chance to monitor for his old buddy, an edge in guarding Harry from a 'known-to-be-insane murderer'. And, it succeeded in that, when it revealed PP/Wormtail. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Sun Dec 22 13:49:43 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 08:49:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius' Influence/Muggle Magic/Barty Jr!Moody Teaching Ha... Message-ID: <144.5d4ba14.2b371cf7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48683 Oops. I type too fast. I left out one of the levels. 1. the Map that the Twins learn to activate. 2. the joke insults page...possibly a disguise to give a reason for having it. Possibly the level it revealed when Filch [or whomever] first confiscated it. 3. a level only MWPP could activate, that showed them where each other was. There may even have been a fourth level. Possibly each of them created a level. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Sun Dec 22 14:19:32 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:19:32 -0500 Subject: SHIP: H/H vs R/H with some FF commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <034f01c2a9c5$263a94a0$2401010a@Frodo> No: HPFGUIDX 48684 > Penny said: "His feelings at 14 are unlikely to affect what he > might think or want in his 20s or 30s." Samnjodie replied: (yes, I know these are out of order, but it makes sense in the context of my reply) > > In the world of the books - and it is highly likely that any > romance that J.K. intends to include in the series will have already > been alluded to - the evidence points away from a H/H relationship > and towards a relationship between Harry and Cho. It also points > (ambiguously, but still) towards a relationship between Hermione and > Ron. I'm not sure that it's possible to say that JKR hasn't hinted at both R/H and H/H relationships - I mean, Harry and Hermione have hugged, and she even kissed him on the cheek at the end of GoF. A very reasonable and rational reading of the books does indicate that the death of Cedric predcludes a relationship between Cho and Harry (although I wouldn't be half surprised if they have one date at some point) and likewise, a very reasonable and rational reading of the books is that Hermione is vaguely interested in Harry as "more-than-just-a-friend". Then again, I never picked up on Ron's crushing on Hermione in GoF - I just thought he still was angry at Harry in a passive-aggressive way and was taking it out on everyone - so my original reading is certainly suspect in the eyes of many. > K, but I'm just speculating on what I think will happen in the > world of the books. By the end of book seven, they will all still > only be seventeen, and whoever they happen to have been in love with > when they were fourteen will still be relevant. Yes it would be relevant to fourteen year olds... Except that JKR has said that there will be an epilogue at the end of Book 7 - you can see the article in the Guardian here: http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4326559,00.html - and here's what she said about the final chapter of Book 7: <> So to ponder what happens after the "true" ending of the story is not only within the realm of possibility, it's something that JKR herself has done. > It would be absurdly > longsighted to try to speculate now where any of them will be in > their twenties or thirties. It's likely they won't even be anywhere > close to where they are at the end of book seven, forget now > when they are just past book four. I wholeheartedly agree with you that where they are at 14 is not necessarily likely to be where they are in their twenties and thirties, but that's why some fanfics which explore what the characters are likely to be like in their 20s and 30s are so interesting. Here are some examples of suggested reading about the Trio and their classmates in their 20s and 30s: AngieJ's Trouble in Paradise series: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/AngieJ/ (A story about what Ron and Hermione's marriage might be like (as well as possible futures for other Weasleys, Harry and Draco) Lori's Paradigm of Uncertainty Universe: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Lori (Nine years after graduating from Hogwarts, Charms fellow Hermione Granger again finds herself caught up in Harry Potter's mysterious life. If you read this, also check out Penny Linsenmeyer & Carole Estes' A Sirius Affair, which takes place a few years before PoU (http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Penny_and_Carole/ )) Alicia-Sue's Unlikely Coven series: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/AliciaSue/ (The next generation - follow the children of Harry/Hermione, Ron/Lavender and Ginny/Draco before and into Hogwarts) John Walton's Song of Time: www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Crazy_Ivan/ (The trio and their friends are at university in St Andrews (yes, they're still teens, but only just) Alex's Snitch! And Orpheus Imperative: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Al/ (in Snitch! Harry has been cast out of the wizarding world and embarked on a new career - with Draco at his side, and in Orpheus, Draco, Ginny, Ron and others have become agents of various sorts in the wizarding world. Boat chases and such ensue.) Saitaina's Every Now & Then: http://www.astronomytower.org/authors/saitaina/ENAT.html (Draco gets an invitation to Harry's wedding and thinks back on their relationship) Irina's Morrigna trilogy: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Irina/ (Why Voldemort tried to kill Harry, what that has to do with Ginny, and why is Draco set to become the next head of the Death Eaters?) Anna Milton's Empire of the Senseless: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/A_L_Milton/ (Ginny Weasley is by and large a failure, and therefore a perfect candidate for taking up politics. When she finds herself inadvertently facing not only a mystery but a general election as well, those who would have her as their puppet realise, however, that she has a few aces up her sleeve - and some rather unexpected allies. Also featuring Mercenary! Draco, Machiavellian! Snape (literally) and an insane amount of Committees' luncheons.) This list is by no means comprehensive - check this list for more: http://www.fictionalley.org//fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php?&thr eadid=312 heidi From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 16:20:30 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:20:30 -0000 Subject: Death in Book 5 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2a841$fd0b6c00$1e4053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48685 "Grace Saalsaa" wrote: > > > There would also be the added spice, for good reading, of the animosity between Black and Snape. Yes, I'd like to see Harry's new pet be Snuffles. > > > Not sure exactly how plausible Snuffles would be as a new pet...but I love it! I can just picture Harry walking into the Potions dungeun with a big black dog behind him, taking a seat right in front of Snape, cooing, "c'mere, Snuffles," and scratching the dog behind the ears. =) Who else would love to see the look on Snape's face? -Laura From gandharvika at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 16:54:45 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:54:45 +0000 Subject: (FILK) Another Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48686 Another Wand (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Another Girl_ by the Beatles) Sing along to a Midi here: http://jacksonhs.com/beatles.html Ron: Oh yeah I've bought another wand, another wand My parents they sent me out on the first day of school I needed a wand but we couldn't afford one that's new So Charlie gave me the old one that he had got But now I've bought another wand, another wand It was a battered looking wand, chipped in places too Unicorn hair was poking out, not of much value I shouldn't complain but I really hated it a lot But now I've bought another wand Another wand, fourteen inches made of willow And in the core a hair from a unicorn's tail By accident my old wand snapped, broken right in two I tried spell-o-tape to fix it, but it wouldn't do Each time I tried it the spell would be a big flop But now I've bought another wand Another wand, fourteen inches made of willow And in the core a hair from a unicorn's tail I have to tell you that I'm so happy with this thing Now I can cast spells without fear of it exploding And I just picked it up at Ollivander's shop Yes I have bought another wand, another wand, another wand. -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf From jodel at aol.com Sun Dec 22 18:00:30 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:00:30 EST Subject: Colors-Nitpicking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48687 Ally states; << Now green and red are opposites on the spectrum - if you take a green-red colour wheel and spin it very fast, they cancel each other out and you get white. >> Er, not quite. Red and green are opposites in the *subtractive* color wheel, which is to say, the pigment color wheel. And added together get grey/black. In the pure *additive* color wheel, which is to say, colored *light*, red and green are both primary colors and added together produce the secondary color, yellow (as indeed happend in the duel in the churchyard.) In the additive color wheel red's opposite is cyan (green/blue) and green's is magenta. (There is also the 'practical' color wheel used in film developing which uses the additive secondary colors [cyan, magenta, yellow] in a subtractive process to break apart white light into its visible components to get the full visible spectrum of colors, including the additive primaries of red, green and blue.) -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Sun Dec 22 18:00:33 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:00:33 EST Subject: Did Dumbledore know that Fake Moody = Crouch? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48688 Rehan asks; << The question, then, that still remains is how exactly did Dumbledore come up with the idea of it being Crouch so quickly? What could he have known beforehand that would lead him to this assumption? Please, try to answer this, as I am totally confuzzled! >> The answer, I believe, is in the chapter "The Madness of Mr Crouch". When Harry runs off to fetch Dumbledore, one of the things he tells D is that Crouch mentioned his son. Now, Harry doesn't say -- at that point -- that he had only mentioned him to say that he had gotten 12 OWLs while his wits were wandering in some fugue state. Later, when they went over just what was said that was made clear, but the suggestion of Barty Crouch Jr having some significance in what was going on had already been made, and Dumbledore isn't so likely to completely write off something as soon as a piece of conflicting information comes up as the kids are. So, at that point, Dumbledore knows that Voldemort, with Wormtail's aid, has somehow managed to tamper with the Tournement. He knows that there is a spy, and he knows that Crouch has been gotten to at some point. He also knows that Crouch's wits turned to his son when they were wandering. Once the spy was identified as Fake!Moody, Dumbledore also knows that whoever this person really is, they were already established within the school before the delegations from Beaubatons and Durmstrang ever arrived. Dumbledore's quite sharp enough to put this last piece of information together with the fact that, somehow, whatever is going on has probably got some association with the Crouch household -- which is more than ample reason to call in the Crouch House Elf to see if she can recognize whoever it is, if he cannot. -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Sun Dec 22 18:00:35 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:00:35 EST Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: Re: Things I... Message-ID: <8a.21ae4af9.2b3757c3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48689 The debate goes; >>jazmyn at pacificpuma.com writes: One wonders if in fact, Peter needed help transforming back FROM a rat and got stuck for 14 years till Lupin and Sirius transformed him back? Explains Treelawny's 'chained' prediction thing<< >>Snuffles responds; oooOOOOoooo... this is an interesting thought.... But, if he could transform as he did after killing all those muggles, wouldn't he be able to transform back to human form?? I really likethe idea though, since he stayed all those years as a rat without once, to our knowledge transforming to human before Sirius and Lupin force the transformation.... >> Pettigrew used his wand to blast the street open and kill the bystanders, then used it to transform and left it behind. Sirius can transform without a wand. Perhaps Peter can't. He didn't have a wand when Sirius and Remus changed him back. (He stole Remus's after Remus dropped it when he transformed and Sirius drove him into the forest.) Plus, we haven't seen him take that form since. Not that that is conclusive evidence of anything. There hasn't exactly been a reason to, and with Nagini prowling about, he had good reason *not* to. -JOdel From selah_1977 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 19:09:26 2002 From: selah_1977 at yahoo.com (Ebony ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:09:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP (with some FF) Re: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48690 Penny said: "His feelings at 14 are unlikely to affect what he might think or want in his 20s or 30s." Jodie replied: "K, but I'm just speculating on what I think will happen in the world of the books. By the end of book seven, they will all still only be seventeen, and whoever they happen to have been in love with when they were fourteen will still be relevant. It would be absurdly longsighted to try to speculate now where any of them will be in their twenties or thirties. It's likely they won't even be anywhere close to where they are at the end of book seven, forget now when they are just past book four." Heidi's done an excellent job responding to this... but I think I'll add some additional thoughts in defense of those of us who indulge in post-Hogwarts thinking. First of all, I think I personally like books and series where a childhood friendship becomes a romance. I don't think that the bonds and attachments that some people make in childhood are superficial... in fact, because of the situation that is in canon (where you have a group of children who are on the verge of a struggle for the very existence of their world as they know it), I think that the Hogwarts kids will remain friends for a long, long time. If HRH became friends because of a troll... can you only imagine what will happen in the last three books? Not only will the Trio's friendship be solidified, I think some of the other kids will come into play. After all, how in the world could they explain what happened to an outsider? Certainly they might find some respite from it all in the companionship or in the arms of someone who didn't and couldn't know... but there would be always something that divides. And as far as falling in love with someone when you're that young, and that being it for you, it's rare but in the realm of fiction, I think it can happen. Without giving away the plot, I totally bought the ending of Phillip Pullman's HDM trilogy... and I cried for those adolescents just as much as I've cried for grown-up couples. Because of the hell (literal and figurative!) they'd been through, I bought it hook, line, and sinker. I wrote a post at FictionAlley over a year ago that explained my PoV. Additional comments are below the quote, demarcated by the stars. *********************** I am a shipper because I am an incurable romantic. I can't imagine not being a shipper... I wanted Mulder and Scully to fall in love... I missed the romantic element in "A Few Good Men"... oh, I'm just a huge sap. I began leaning H/H after PoA, was disappointed in GoF when I saw that it probably wouldn't happen... read Lori's PoU fanfic... and then was converted from "I prefer H/H" to an H/H die-hard shipper by Penny and (quite strangely) a group of my own students. (Refer to the HP4GU archives.) I like Hermione and Harry for each other after canon because in my mind they'd be such a balanced couple. Harry likes to have fun and is easygoing enough to handle Hermione's very slight (but worrisome!) bent towards obsessive-compulsive and her occasional singlemindedness. Hermione is nurturing and sensitive enough to understand the hole in Harry's psyche formed by his horrible childhood and tumultuous teenage years ducking Voldemort. I think that if Harry survives canon, if he is to be in a relationship it absolutely *must* be with a woman who will either be a) content to stand in his shadow or b) shines brightly enough so that she isn't overshadowed. The shadow *will* be there, of course... because at 14 Harry's already going from celeb to icon. The only female contemporary we've met so far that would be able to handle this well IMO is Hermione, whose talents and willfullness place her firmly in the second category... I think Carole and Penny have done an excellent job showing why Ginny might not feel comfortable in category A. I've thought about the possibility of Harry meeting an OC that's perfect for him sometime after canon (and plan to explore it fanfiction-wise very soon), but I still advocate H/H over this idea of the perfect OC (read: Mary Sue) for a few reasons. First, Harry is going to have some issues post-canon IMO that the OC woman in question would have to understand... I think that if Harry comes out of canon as a prisoner, a fugitive, or less than heroic, then it would be perfectly fine for an OC without the burden of knowing his past to come into his life and his heart. That is the case with ASA Cordelia, and with RJ Anderson's Maud Moody, both excellent OCs... their "outside" status makes the fact that they are loving a troubled man easier. In a slighter way, this is the case with Jana's OC Anya, whose man is stigmatized (even if only a bit) by his homosexual past. OTOH, if Harry comes out of canon "stained" in public opinion in any way, I could see potential problems for H/H... But if Harry comes out of canon larger than life, you run into several problems placing him with an OC. Again, you have the problem of the shadow... sure, the woman might transcend all that and discover the man behind the legend. But Harry is just so darn private with all the details of his life... and truthfully, there are depths to Harry and bits of his character that he has no idea are there. Harry is NOT a terribly introspective person... and certainly not one to spill his guts to any but his nearest and dearest. I can see him perhaps getting with an OC, being perfectly romantic and sensual and sexual, but in the long run leaving her with this sense of being unfulfilled because it would be terribly difficult for him to give her his soul without there being a gradual build-up of trust. And subconsciously Harry feels that he already *has* people who fulfill this particular emotional need, and it's terribly painful for him to talk or even think about a whole lot of stuff anyway, so why can't they just have a nice light relationship without the scary "baring your soul" element? (This is how I perceived the Harry/Cho relationship in my own fanfiction's backstory.) Another factor to consider is that Harry, Ron, and Hermione are extremely close in canon and have gotten more and more insular as a group with each book. At this point, for someone to break into the tight circle the Trio has formed, they'd have to really fill them in on a whole lot (for instance, not even Ginny at this point in canon knows that Sirius is not evil, or his whereabouts... although she may know by the post-GoF summer). I see the three-way bond that exists there as a classic blending of Lewis' perceptions of affection (love based on familiarity and proximity) and friendship (love based on a common interest, goal, or perspective). I do like the idea of all three ending up with others, actually, and like it a whole lot... but if current trends continue (which of course JKR can change on us in a moment!) I do feel that the significant other would feel a little uneasy about the fact that long before they arrived on the scene, the love of their life *had* not just casual friends, or very good friends, but friends who knew them inside out... who knew their souls... who were knit, as it were, to them completely. It would take a phenomenal character to be able to handle this without jealousy or paranoia. I like the idea of Harry and Hermione together because I think in the long run they would really be best for each other, and not just when fighting evil, but also in times of peace and contentment. I don't think they're boring together. I do think it is totally plausible that they could become attracted to one another. I don't think that they're like brother and sister at all... not enough antagonism or scarce-resources competition there. Ron and Hermione remind me more of siblings, which may be why I am slightly squicked by what I see developing between them. ********************** Okay, so that was my justification for writing post-Hogwarts H/H. So what does this have to do with canon, where they're between 11 and 17 years old? I view the Harry Potter series as a continuous narrative, in which books 1-7 are to be ideally read as a continuum. I think that this is closest to authorial intent, rather than an episodic read in which all 7 books are disconnected. The view of canon from GoF is very different from our view at the end of, say, CoS. That goes without saying. At the end of CoS, I don't think I was so firm about my H/H ship preference... I could have definitely made a vague Harry/Ginny case, I think. At the end of CoS, there was no Cho, no Viktor, and Sirius Black had received only a brief mention in PS/SS. At the end of CoS, we didn't know who Professor Lupin was, or what the death of Lily and James *sounded like*. We had no idea of what the Marauder's Map was, or what the Unforgivable Curses were. We didn't know about the rest of the wizarding world, of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, of Karkaroff or Maxime. We didn't know how poorly regarded giants and werewolves really were, or that hippogriffs and Time-Turners would be a key to freedom, or that Hermione's bushy hair and buck teeth wouldn't always be bushy and bucked. We just didn't know. And when it comes to what will happen in the next three books, we still don't know. Perhaps that is why I've engaged in ship debate over the past 2.5 years. As a writer myself, it makes my teeth grind when someone tries to call a story halfway through. I mean, imagine if someone had tried to call the romances halfway through Little Women, at the end of the first book, right before Meg's wedding. How many readers could have predicted Jo/Friedrich, and Laurie/Amy? I am not saying that H/H will happen. I am just not certain that we can say for certain that R/H or H/G or some combination of both is inevitable. What I do think is that Harry/Cho and Viktor/Hermione will have to be dealt with at the opening of OotP. What we in fandom take for granted (the dissolution of those early romances) hasn't been certain in canon. I also hope that JKR, if she intends R/H, will show Hermione reciprocating Ron's interest. That is the disconnect for me in R/H... and if it happens without much evidence of reciprocation on Hermione's part, I'll predict trouble. I happen to Mod a board at FictionAlley which specifically deals with Ron/Hermione vs. Harry/Hermione debate. It's not for the faint at heart... people really hold their beliefs about Trio-shipping strongly, and it's a really challenging place to keep civil. Yet I think that the discourse is interesting, and shouldn't be silenced. Here's a link to the general Trio forums: http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php? s=&forumid=51 The Deathmarch thread is *always* on the first page. Always. But after all is said and done, we'll just have to wait on new canon. Nothing else will answer any of the questions that we have about shipping, or for that matter, anything else. --Ebony AKA AngieJ From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 19:36:29 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:36:29 -0000 Subject: Eaters, Make Them Hurt And Cry (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48691 Even Death Eaters are full of Christmas cheer . Eaters, Make Them Hurt And Cry To the tune of Angels We Have Heard on High Dedicated to Gail B. THE SCENE: The Malfoy Estate, Enter Chorus of Death Eaters CHORUS Eaters, make them hurt and cry and sing out with severe pain Let ev'ry DE voice vie in a hymn we must not name Cru-oo-oo-oo-oo-cio Avada Kedrava! Deck the holly and the wreath, share a glass of sweet eggnog Send Muggles six feet beneath or feed them to Aragog Cru-oo-oo-oo-oo-cio Avada Kedrava! Hail our great Lord Voldemort, he's once more physically here He has a surprise in store for the '04 fiscal year Cru-oo-oo-oo-oo-cio Avada Kedrava! - CMC (back to addressing Xmas cards) HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From muellem at bc.edu Sun Dec 22 19:51:22 2002 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:51:22 -0000 Subject: will we ever know.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48692 Hi all, I am curious if anyone else here has speculated who was the head of house of Slytherin during Snape's time. Since it has been stated that Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins who were all DeathEaters, doesn't it seem that the head of house at that time could have been a DeathEater as well? Could that gang of Slytherins really kept their involvment as DeathEaters from their head of house? Also, what happened to that person? We don't know when exactly Snape became Slytherin's head of house, or when he became employed at Hogwarts. I am guessing he came to be a professor after Voldermort was defeated? in 1981, but that is my guess. cole who really wants to know the true backstory of the rise & fall of Voldermort... From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun Dec 22 20:11:19 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:11:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP (with some FF) Re: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24222607338.20021222121119@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48693 Hi, Sunday, December 22, 2002, 11:09:26 AM, Ebony wrote: > What I do think is that Harry/Cho and Viktor/Hermione will have to be > dealt with at the opening of OotP. What we in fandom take for > granted (the dissolution of those early romances) hasn't been certain > in canon. I don't think this will necessarily be dealt with at the *opening* of OotP. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it took most of the book for this to happen. The way JKR has very slowly built up the relationships and feelings, it would almost feel wrong, if the Viktor/Hermione and Cho/Harry feelings were done away with too quickly. I don't think we'll see a definite R/H romance all that soon, either. And yes, I do believe it's going to happen and won't be disappointed if it does. I read the books before joining any discussion lists, and don't see Harry and Hermione any better suited for each other than Ron and Hermione. Each relationship would have their unique problems (which relationship doesn't, after the rose-colored glasses come off ?) and I truly don't see the often mentioned "soul mate" relationship between Harry and Hermione, so far. JKR can convince me otherwise, fanfiction can not. Also, it always puzzles me to see fanfiction brought in to show us what the future could be like. The characters in fanfiction are not the real thing and can be made to do, say and feel just about anything the author wants them to. Some of the characterization is totally unrecognizable! (I'm not talking about any particular story that was recently listed here as recommended reading! Are any of those positively portrayed R/H, btw? It's not impossible ). It seems some people like some fanfiction characterizations so much, that when the "real" characters (JKR's) are different, the readers somehow feel betrayed. The long wait between GoF and OotP may have a lot to do with this. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From rcmcneil at alltel.net Sun Dec 22 20:06:53 2002 From: rcmcneil at alltel.net (Robin ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:06:53 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's first prediction In-Reply-To: <20021221032308.3355.qmail@web40513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48694 Trelawney made a point of asking Ron and Harry which one of them was the first to rise. If she dismissed Dumbledore's action of standing up and was concerned about Ron and Harry, then that makes me believe that Dumbledore was not an issue. Also, Dumbledore standing up upon trelawney's arrivalmay have just been a common courtesy extended from a gentleman to a female. ~Robin From rcmcneil at alltel.net Sun Dec 22 20:19:51 2002 From: rcmcneil at alltel.net (Robin ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:19:51 -0000 Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I ... In-Reply-To: <3E03D33F.A050A6E8@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48695 > > One wonders if in fact, Peter needed help transforming back FROM a rat > and got stuck for 14 years till Lupin and Sirius transformed him back? > Explains Treelawny's 'chained' prediction thing.. > > Jazmyn Peter didn't need help transforming back. He didn't want to be shown for what he was. Lupin and Sirius had to FORCE him to show himself and transform. ~Robin From bobafett at harbornet.com Sun Dec 22 19:21:54 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:21:54 -0800 Subject: Harry's Secret Keeper and hagrids age References: Message-ID: <000f01c2a9ef$654e3fa0$78edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48696 I didnt look to see if this had been a topic before but I assume Harry had a secret keeper protecting him but who was it? My guess is either Mrs. Figg or more likely Prof. Dumbledore. Mrs. Figg has what some would call an unhealthy afinity for cats could they be some piece of this puzzle? Also on another matter a little while back someone mentioned Hagrid saying he never thought he would live to see another Triwizard Tournament. The person stated that the last tri-wiz-tourny had been quite some time ago (exact date not on hand) but it would have made Hagrid old while he was attending Hogwarts. But in CoS Harry quite clearly says he would love to have seen Hagrid when he was here at 13 years old. Clearly Hagrid had only attended Hogwarts the one time; this being so, that would make Hagrid the aprox age of Voldemort and seeing the chamber had been opened 50 years prior, that would make Hagrid around the age of 63. --BoBaFeTT From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Dec 22 20:53:15 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:53:15 -0600 Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I ... References: Message-ID: <3E06263B.A52B4ACD@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48697 "Robin " wrote: > > > Peter didn't need help transforming back. He didn't want to be shown > for what he was. Lupin and Sirius had to FORCE him to show himself > and transform. > > ~Robin > > He also didn't have a wand anymore, so could he even transform back if he wanted to? He might in fact have been stuck since he left his wand behind when he transformed 14 years before. Jazmyn From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 21:16:34 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:16:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Illegal animagi (was Rita Skeeter, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things I ... In-Reply-To: <3E06263B.A52B4ACD@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <20021222211634.87361.qmail@web14606.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48698 jazmyn wrote: "Robin " wrote: > > > Peter didn't need help transforming back. He didn't want to be shown > for what he was. Lupin and Sirius had to FORCE him to show himself > and transform. > > ~Robin > > He also didn't have a wand anymore, so could he even transform back if he wanted to? He might in fact have been stuck since he left his wand behind when he transformed 14 years before. Jazmyn I am not sure about this whole "wand" thing. It SEEMS so far in canon that animagi transformations are wandless magic. Are you suggesting that because PP is not the most proficient wizard he needs a wand to do the transformation? Well we KNOW from canon that he can tranform without a wand. In POA, when PP tranforms back into rat and escapes he does not have Lupin's wand any more, Harry used Expelliarmus to send it flying away. Harry then warned a still human-form PP to stay where he was, and then PP transforms. Plus, on the way out of the SS, Lupin tells a wandless PP that if he tranforms he will be killed (and we can assume that the Marauders knew about PP's transformation "routine") So I guess you are saying that PP can transform without a wand, but requires one to transform back? I find this highly unlikely. I could go on about rats trying to hold wands, but it will get into the currently-unsolvable (IMO) debate about where the heck the wand goes in these transformations. ANGELA ________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! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun Dec 22 21:40:22 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:40:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney's first prediction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76227951541.20021222134022@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48699 Hi, Sunday, December 22, 2002, 12:06:53 PM, Robin wrote: > Trelawney made a point of asking Ron and Harry which one of them was > the first to rise. If she dismissed Dumbledore's action of standing > up and was concerned about Ron and Harry, then that makes me believe > that Dumbledore was not an issue. Don't you think that if this "prediction" about 13 dining together, and the first one getting up being the first to die (soon after, I assume?) were known to happen frequently, the adults would have decided on having one of them leave early, so Trelawny could safely join without putting somebody in this scary position? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 21:57:49 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:57:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's Secret Keeper and hagrids age In-Reply-To: <000f01c2a9ef$654e3fa0$78edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "BoBaFeTT" wrote: > > I didnt look to see if this had been a topic before > but I assume Harry had a secret keeper protecting him > but who was it? -end this part- bboy_mn: This has been covered. A lot of people thought of the same thing you did, so it's not so far fetched. Just one problem, Harry's wear abouts is not a secret. Dedalus Diggle bowed to him one day when he was a little boy. I think someone, a wizard, shook his hand. Several odd people, presumably wizards and witches, smiled and nodded to him when he was out and about (pre-Hogwarts). Sirius can find him. The Weasleys can find him. McGonagall and Hagrid have both been to the Dursley; well, outside the front door anyway. Even Voldemort to some extent knows where Harry lives. So, there couldn't be a secret keeper because it's obviously wasn't kept secret. HOWEVER, as time goes on, it appears the Harry has been protected a vartiety of ways. One of which is an offensive shield charm that protects him while he is in the care of the Dursleys (that's my best guess, not a fact). Yes, Mrs. Figg is part of it. There is also 'ancient magic'. Since the Ministry finds out about things occurring at the Dursley household nearly the instant they occur (Dobby and the violet pudding, blowing up Aunt Marge), it seems safe to assume there is some sort of Magic monitoring going on there. So, a variety of protections, but it seems the 'Secret Keeper' wasn't one of them. -end bboy_mn this part- > > Also on another matter a little while back someone mentioned Hagrid saying he never thought he would live to see another Triwizard Tournament. > ..edited... > > --BoBaFeTT bboy_mn: Your estimation of Hagrid's age is correct. Let me explain this by analogy. I could say that I don't think I'll ever live to see another world war. Although, I must add that I have personally never seen one. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't think I will live to see another one. You have to put this into the framework of the above analogy. The emphasis isn't on Hagrid seeing it, it's on the tournement occurring. It's about seeing a centuries dead tournement *occurring* again, rather than Hagrid personally seeing it again. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Dec 22 22:20:06 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:20:06 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore know that Fake Moody = Crouch? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jodel at a... wrote: > Rehan asks; > > << The question, then, that still remains is how exactly did Dumbledore come > up with the idea of it being Crouch so quickly? What could he have known > beforehand that would lead him to this assumption? Please, try to answer > this, as I am totally confuzzled! >> > > The answer, I believe, is in the chapter "The Madness of Mr Crouch". > > When Harry runs off to fetch Dumbledore, one of the things he tells D is that > Crouch mentioned his son. Now, Harry doesn't say -- at that point -- that he > had only mentioned him to say that he had gotten 12 OWLs while his wits were > wandering in some fugue state. Actually, Crouch *did* mention his son while he was fighting Imperious and aware of what he was saying: "Don't...leave...me!" he whispered, his eyes bulging again. "I...escaped...must warn...must tell...see Dumbldore...my fault...all my fault...Bertha...dead...all my fault...my son...my fault...tell Dumbledore...Harry Potter...the Dark Lord...stronger...Harry Potter..." Man, that was hard to type! And, a bit more to the point, as far as what Dumbledore knows is concerned, is what Harry said to him outside his office: "Said he wants to warn you...said he's done something terrible...he mentioned his son...and Bertha Jorkins...and -- and Voldemort...something about Voldemort getting stronger...." So Dumbledore did get the true message that Crouch Sr. was concerned about his son. Harry did indeed make the distinction between Crouch's two ways of speaking, and told D about what he said when he seemed to know where he was. Interestingly, he left out the word "dead" as applied to Bertha, and the fact that his own name was mentioned twice! But back to the issue at hand: > Dumbledore's quite sharp enough to put this last piece of information > together with the fact that, somehow, whatever is going on has probably got > some association with the Crouch household -- which is more than ample reason > to call in the Crouch House Elf to see if she can recognize whoever it is, if > he cannot. > > -JOdel Yes, I am thinking that D has been doing much thinking about the Crouch incident since it happened, but reaching no firm conclusions. Then, the minute Fake!Moody removed Harry from Dumbledore's presence outside the maze, D knew he was not Moody. As he called Snape and McGonnegal and rushed into the castle, things must have clicked with him: Moody is not really Moody. He is an enemy agent of Voldemort's. Crouch mentioned his son. Even though he may not have known for sure, as JOdel says, he knows it has something to do with Crouch's household, and so summons Winky. Why, though, I wonder? So she can help calm him? Because she deserves to know what's happened? So she can help explain? My guess is the sencond one -- so that she can see for herself what has happened to her old family, to give her some chance of finally disconnecting herself from them and finding a new place for herself in the world, and some peace. The amazing thing is how Dumbledore would think to do this at that time (not that he wouldn't show just as much concern for the well-being of an elf as for a human, just that he had the presence of mind to think of her just after he'd nearly lost Harry). Annemehr From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Sun Dec 22 23:13:42 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:13:42 EST Subject: Map Questions Message-ID: <81.24d930a4.2b37a126@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48702 In a message dated 12/22/02 8:44:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, Lynx412 at aol.com writes: > Then, I began to wonder about the Map itself. It seems to have > several > levels of use. The Map that becomes so useful to the Twins, the Trio, and > then to Crouch!Moody. So, I wonder if, in fact the Map doesn't have a third > > level. What if MWPP set it up to conceal their names or their own > positions? > Perhaps there's a level that only one of the Marauders can activate. > PP/Wormtail would have made sure to give the Twins only the level that > would > not reveal the Marauders. Lupin, however, would have used the level that > would show the Marauders, since he like everyone else in the WW believed > that > Black was a villain. the Map gave him the chance to monitor for his old > buddy, an edge in guarding Harry from a 'known-to-be-insane murderer'. And, > > it succeeded in that, when it revealed PP/Wormtail. Which leads *me* to another question. Why was there just one? More importantly, *is* there just one? There being just one brings up all sorts of questions like who got to keep the map? and how often did they switch who was keeping it? Presumably they spent most of their time together, so they really wouldn't need to know where one another currently was, would they? And, the question that is burning in my brain, *yells* How did they make the map?!??!!?!? It's been driving me out of what little sanity I have left. How could four kids still in school make such a complex piece of magic? Even if they *are* the top students in the school, how did they find all the passageways? The one under the Whomping Willow is obvious, Lupin used it. But how about the one behind that witch? How in the name of Salazar Slytherin would they know to tap the hump and say "Dissendium"? Is there any canon for this? Practical theories? Insanely wild theories? ~*~*~Oryomai~*~* "It's not backstabbing if I do it to their faces!" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 23 01:03:59 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:03:59 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map how-to / Fleur / Head of Slytherin House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48703 infiniT wrote: << That leads me to think that, even tho he was taking the Polyjuice Potion, his real name would show up on the Map, right? Maybe that can be filed under the burning question of how come nobody ever discovered PP's name as PP!Scabbers on the Map...Or did he not drink the Potion for a short time so that he really *was* Crouch Jr.? >> I doubt he would skip the Polyjuice at the very time that he would MOST need to be Moody, in case he was caught burgling Snape's office. I believe that the Map shows people under their true names even when the people are transformed. Therefore, I used to often wonder how come the twins never noticed this Peter Pettigrew bloke hanging out with first brother Percy and then brother Ron? People told me that "perfect Percy" would leave his pet in the dorm room all day rather than carrying him around to classes, and the twins never felt a need to check who was in Percy's dorm room ... it's the people OUTSIDE the room who could catch them breaking rules! ... and therefore they never saw Peter's name while Percy had the rat. I believe the twins would occasionally want to check that there was no one in Percy's dorm room, when they wanted to sneak into it to prepare some 'joke' on Percy (or on Oliver), but I can make up an excuse why Percy took Scabbers out for an airing at just those times. And if the twins never used the Map to look into Gryffindor dorm rooms, that would explain why they never noticed Ron (and presumably Percy before him) in the same bed as someone named "Peter", which I really think would make them curious... But why did they never see Ron and Peter together outside Gryffindor Tower? People have suggested that Fred and George, having used the Map to memorise all the secret passageways (presumably including ones they DIDN'T mention to Harry, because of not leading to Hogsmeade), used it only to check that 'the coast was clear' in places that they wanted to sneak through. Maybe no longer used it for even that purpose, if they had learned a specialized spell to do exactly that. To me, that seems dreadfully unimaginative of them -- *I* would have been constantly checking to find two people together in small private places! -- but would explain why they were so willing to give the Map to Harry: they weren't using it anymore. Cheryl wrote: << First, I wonder how the Twins *learned* to operate the Map. Oryomai wrote: << Even if they *are* the top students in the school, how did they find all the passageways? The one under the Whomping Willow is obvious, Lupin used it. But how about the one behind that witch? How in the name of Salazar Slytherin would they know to tap the hump and say "Dissendium"? >> I don't know any canon for it, but I believe that there are magical ways to diagnosing magic. Like maybe you cast a spell on an artifact and it turns different colors to show what kinds of spells were used to create it, except probably way more complicated. I believe that Bill uses that sort of analytical spell in his work as a cursebreaker and Fred and George used that sort of analytical spell to figure out the Marauder's Map. I'm sure they have the ability; they are bright kids with powerful magic, as shown by inventing and making the Canary Creams and the Ton-Tongue Toffee. So I assume that the "Marauders" (yes, I know that that is not what they called themselves -- the Map has singular "Marauder" -- but I'm sure that they called themselves SOMETHING and Marauders is TYPE of things those cliques called themselves in those days) used that type of analytical magic when exploring the castle. Maybe they could find a secret passage in the wall by tapping on it and hearing that it wasn't solid, or maybe a spell to state the density of material that the spell passed through? Then tracing the passage to its entrance. maybe by dowsing? Then maybe "Dissendium" is a perfectly common spell for opening things by splitting them (like jar and lid) rather than a password? Is making the Map at age 16 is more impressive than TMR making the Diary at age 16? Sixteen year old wizards seem to be able to do great things -- what will Hermione do in book 5 or 6? Diana wrote: << [Fleur] 'll also be the first DADA teacher that won't be actively reviled, disliked or disdainfully ignored by at least some portion of the students and/or professors. >> I think Hermione actively dislikes Fleur. Didn't she make a number of scornful remarks about the way Fleur dresses? Cole Biancardi wrote: << I am curious if anyone else here has speculated who was the head of house of Slytherin during Snape's time. Since it has been stated that Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins who were all DeathEaters, doesn't it seem that the head of house at that time could have been a DeathEater as well? Could that gang of Slytherins really kept their involvment as DeathEaters from their head of house? Also, what happened to that person? >> Someone proposed a theory that Karkaroff was head of Slytherin House at that time and recruited his Slytherin students as Death Eaters. There is the makings of a good story there, where K was trying to seduce young Severus into his bed and the Dark Lord's service, and Sevvie kept resisting until he went into a rage at what he perceived as Dumbledore's unfair favoritism of Gryffindor in (what he perceived as) not adequately punishing Sirius et alia for The Prank. Convinced that Dumbledore was a hypocrite who didn't practise the goodness he preached, Sevvie was utterly furious at himself for having been such a naive fool as to be deceived by Dumbledore's sweet talk, and presented himself to his Head of House: "Do you still want what you've been asking me for all year?" In general I think that no one was recruited as a Death Eater while still at Hogwarts; they may have admired the Death Eaters from afar while in school, but they were recruited after they left school and joined the adult world. In that case, the Head of their old House might have talked up the Dark Side while they were in school and passed info to the DE recruiters about which kids would be useful and how to approach them. OR the Head of their old House might have been firmly attached to the Light Side, horrified at what happened to his kids, and passed info to the Light Side about their weaknesses, how to defeat or capture them... imagine how awful he'd feel at seeing what had only recently been children in his care killed (Rosier, Wilkes) or put into Azkaban (the Lestranges) because of *his* information -- maybe he committed suicide. Less angstily, maybe he was killed by some of his own old students whom he was trying to arrest. By the way, does Biancardi mean 'white heart'? 'Coal-white heart?' From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 23 02:10:12 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 02:10:12 -0000 Subject: SHIP (with some FF) Re: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48704 Ebony said: >>>> I think that if Harry comes out of canon as a prisoner, a fugitive, or less than heroic, then it would be perfectly fine for an OC without the burden of knowing his past to come into his life and his heart. OTOH, if Harry comes out of canon "stained" in public opinion in any way, I could see potential problems for H/H...<<< Now see, this is where I think H/H becomes canon-challenged. You seem to be saying that Hermione would be suitable for Harry only if he comes through with his fame and his power intact. I agree. Hermione needs someone who won't feel threatened by her drive to succeed or perceive her as a rival. And yet, if there's one thing we know about Harry, it's that he's just not interested in anyone who wants him for his fame and his power. I don't think this changes just because the desire for a powerful partner doesn't derive from hero-worship. How can a relationship be about love if it's so much about power? Power and fame are fickle friends...what happens to the relationship if he loses them? I'm not saying H/H can't happen. But if it does, I'd like to see Harry accept that his fame and power are an essential part of what would make him attractive to Hermione as a partner. Pippin From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sun Dec 22 22:02:05 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:02:05 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney's first prediction Message-ID: <95.27875bd6.2b37905d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48705 In a message dated 22/12/2002 16:41:03 Eastern Standard Time, siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > Don't you think that if this "prediction" about 13 dining > together, and the first one getting up being the first to > die (soon after, I assume?) were known to happen frequently, > the adults would have decided on having one of them leave > early, so Trelawny could safely join without putting > somebody in this scary position I think that, perhaps, since it is pretty evident that most of the teacher's find Trelawny's predictions to be complete and utter excrement on the most part- save when Dumbledore says that her true predictions are up to "Two"- no one really believed that it was important. Trelawny seems more like a novelty to have around which entertains Dumbledore than an actual "seer". Sure, her ideas and heart are in the right place, but look at how M. McGonagall pick fun of her, Trelawny's, predictions. I tend to agree with Hermione's actions with regards to her... Just leave the class.... She doesn't seem the most reliable source of information. ;) -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Mon Dec 23 03:29:55 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:29:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney's first prediction Message-ID: <1a3.df403c1.2b37dd33@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48706 In a message dated 12/22/02 4:41:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > Don't you think that if this "prediction" about 13 dining together, and the > first one getting up being the first to die (soon after, I assume?) were > known to happen frequently, the adults would have decided on having one of > them leave > early, so Trelawny could safely join without putting somebody in this scary > position? Actually, this is an ancient superstion [sp? I've messed it up so badly my spell checker doesn't recognize it], supposedly linked to [sorry for the religious reference] the 'Last Supper', in which 13 people sat down and one died a few days later. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Dec 23 04:11:09 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63 ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:11:09 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry's Dream of the Turban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48707 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants " wrote: > I have two questions about this scenario, though. > First, how would Voldemort know Harry's a Parselmouth? How would Voldemort know that Harry had the Stone in his pocket? I don't exactly know, but I imagine, as you say, that because the ability comes from Voldemort himself, he'd sense some kind of resonance. Or even if Harry was a Parselmouth on his own, maybe Parselmouths can detect each other. At any rate, Turban!Voldie seems to know what's going on even from beneath the turban. > > The second question is, what exactly was Voldemort hoping to > accomplish with that dream? The dream-turban tells Harry he must > switch to Slytherin house. But Harry's already been sorted, and > it's not like first-years can switch houses at their whim. As far as we know, they can't. But Harry wouldn't necessarily know that. Maybe if he were persuaded that he had "messed up" the sorting by arguing with the hat, he might go tell someone that there had been a mistake. > If the > message was metaphorical, encouraging Harry to side with the Heir of > Slytherin in his future, then it seems like a roundabout way of > doing it -- eleven-year-old boys aren't much good at deciphering > symbolism and metaphor; if you want them to do something, you have > to tell them straight out. If I were Voldemort (and sometimes I am :D) I'd want to prime his mind to accept that he belonged in Slytherin--starting with the subconscious and then trying a more direct approach later on, maybe using Quirrell to tell him about the Chamber and show him what he can do with it. I'm imagining that Voldemort figures he can use Harry that very year to BE the Heir of Slytherin and open the Chamber. Then Voldie would be rebirthed shortly thereafter and all Hell would break loose. MUCH earlier than JKR had planned, but that's Voldemort for you. But because Harry resisted even while dreaming, Voldemort took it as a terrible affront and determined to destroy him as originally planned. And to make matters worse, Harry had the nerve to forget the dream the next morning. :D Now how about this? Let's say Harry doesn't hear about Slytherin from Hagrid and he accepts the Hat's verdict. He's in Snape's house. How does that affect how he treats Harry? Does Snape hate Harry in part because he knows Harry refused to be in Slytherin? --Dicentra From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 04:16:58 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:16:58 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48708 We shippers (or those of us who like to get under the characters' skins) never tire of this topic. I've thought of Ron and Hermione as a bad mismatch. The reasons have more to do with Ron, IMO, then with Hermione. His issues make a successful relationship with her really unlikely. Ron is struggling to find a place for himself. He started out as laboring under the shadow of his brothers, Head Boys and Quidditch captains; so what does he do? Become buddies with the most famous wizard of his age. Add to that his self-consciousness about being poor, and this is a young man with an already fragile self-image. Now take his part in the Trio. He's Harry's best friend, but already we see signs of a Harry/Hermione team that has less time for Ron in it. Hermione is Harry's coach and personal trainer, the intellect who prepares him for the challenges he faces. Hermione teaches Harry spells while Ron acts as the Stunning dummy. When the Trio discuss events and theories with Sirius and "Moody," Ron doesn't quite keep up. There's no reason to think Ron is dim; he gets good grades, or at least did in PS/SS. His problem is that he's friends with an intensely hardworking intellect and a phenomenal natural talent. Does becoming romantically involved with the intellectual half of this dynamo sound like something that would succeed in the long term? If this picture of Ron continues, his role in the Trio will become more and more of an issue in any relationship he has with Hermione. This is what Ebony had to say about the kind of female that would suit Harry: "I think that if Harry survives canon, if he is to be in a relationship it absolutely *must* be with a woman who will either be a) content to stand in his shadow or b) shines brightly enough so that she isn't overshadowed." Ron, OTOH, only seems suited for (a), the supportive, background person whose loyalty will make him feel he has a safe base, *someplace* where he's Number One. Hermione could no more hold herself back for the sake of Ron's feelings than she could be Gryffindor's Seeker. It would be completely unnatural for her. The stress of it on both sides would tear them apart. Of course the caveat here is the one Penny reminds us of; they're 14. It seems to be written, as the seers say, that Ron and Hermione are going to be involved for some time at some point. It's also clear that Harry has no romantic feelings for Hermione now or the least jealousy about a Ron/Hermione ship. Goodness knows everyone has baggage, but I believe Ron's is the exact wrong baggage for a long-term romance with Hermione. From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 04:36:06 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:36:06 -0000 Subject: SHIP (with some FF) Re: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48709 Ebony:"OTOH, if Harry comes out of canon "stained" in public opinion in any way, I could see potential problems for H/H..." Pippin:"Now see, this is where I think H/H becomes canon-challenged. You seem to be saying that Hermione would be suitable for Harry only if he comes through with his fame and his power intact. I agree." I see Hermione as one of the few people who would be past all that. I believe she knows Harry better than perhaps any of his contemporaries, and accepts him completely for who he is. She's very clear on what she believes, and if he's worshipped or reviled, he's the same Harry as far as she's concerned. She depends on nobody else for what she thinks. Pippin:"Hermione needs someone who won't feel threatened by her drive to succeed or perceive her as a rival." Isn't that just what Harry is? For all his talent and fame, he doesn't seem to have any ego where the Trio is concerned. We haven't seen any envy on his part towards her at any time. I'll bet if Ron joined the Gryffindor team and became a star and Captain, Harry would only be glad for him. From alexpie at aol.com Mon Dec 23 05:19:55 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:19:55 EST Subject: Was Barty!Moody's plans for Harry - DADA teachers--Is Fleur as DADA Teacher Message-ID: <65.53d7569.2b37f6fb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48710 Fleur seems to me enormously unskilled in tackling the Dark Arts. She never bested the other TriWizard candidates and, indeed, when it meant most to her, couldn't manage a simple spell of any kind to save Gabrielle. What in the world could she teach Hogwarts students, except what not to do? Mind you, I think canon has shown that she's quite a nice girl, once she overcame her shyness/haughtiness (either/both?), but a teacher? I think not! Happy Holidays to All, from BaHa of Ravenclaw [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 05:35:17 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 05:35:17 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer " wrote: > We shippers (or those of us who like to get under the characters' > skins) never tire of this topic. > > I've thought of Ron and Hermione as a bad mismatch. The reasons > have more to do with Ron, IMO, then with Hermione. ... ... ... > > Ron is struggling to find a place for himself. > > ...big edited... > > Goodness knows everyone has baggage, but I believe Ron's is the > exact wrong baggage for a long-term romance with Hermione. > >Jim Fere bboy_mn replies with the whole hearted defense of Ron: So, you think the Ron we see at 11 or for that matter 14, is the only Ron there will ever be. That his character and ablilities are fully developed now, and there is no hope for improvement? I think not. There is no chance that Ron could go on to win the European and World Wizard Chess titles? He's already demonstrated that he is better than McGonagall, who must be good or she wouldn't have chosen it as part of her protection against the stone. There is no chance that an older and wiser Ron, could assist his brothers in building their joke shop into a financial empire? There is no chance that Ron will get to display outstanding heroism AGAIN? He's shown outstanding heroism. selflessness, and nobility in sacificing his life to help Harry protect the Stone. True he didn't die, but when he sacrificed himself to the Queen, he had every expectation of dying. He stood on a broken leg against the most notorious criminal alive, determine to sacrifice himself before he would allow his friend to be harmed. Sounds like a real wienie to me (sarcasm). Perhaps you think that Ron has only mediocre magical talent. But he was able to levitate a massive wooden club and defeat a full grown mountain troll at age 11 USING THE *WRONG* CHARM. He used 'levitate a feather' to levitate a massive wooden club which implies that the bulk of the magic came not from the enchantment, but from sheer force of magical will power. Not too shabby in my book. You think that there is no chance that Ron may have hidden talents that haven't entered into the story yet? There are many who speculate that it will be Ron who ends up Captain of the Quidditch team when the new Quidditch team forms. There are many ways in which Ron hasn't challenged himself yet. As he enters his teen years, he, like all teens, is going to become more his own man, more defined by himself than his family and friends. Ron has tremendous room to develope. Harry has been forced into being the person he is, or is defined as. Hermione has chosen to define herself, although, not necessarily wisely. Ron has the potential to mold himself into who and what he wants to be. Ron has the potential to discover himself, rather than have 'himself' thrust upon him. Personally, I have no doubt that Ron will grow into the greatest Weasley who ever lived. Ron is the youngest of six brothers, he's allowed to be a kid, he's allowed to play, he's allowed to not be serious because he has other brothers to pick up the slack in the more serious areas of life. Harry doesn't have that luxury. He has now and always has had to be serious, because from the day he was born, his life has been dangerous. He's never really learned to 'play' and not be serious the way Ron has. Plus Ron has had a lot of fun older brothers to play with (and NO, I don't mean in a slashy way); experience is a great teacher. Hermione maybe a schoolgirl but she has the mentality of a 40 year old. She is not exactly the type who is able to or knows how to play. Probably because she his an only child. The extent to which Hermione (and for that matter Harry) has learned the simple and productive art of play, she has learned from her association with Ron. Where is the fun in either Harry or Hermione's life without Ron? And, I don't mean that in the sense of comic relief; I mean that in the sense of the joy of life. The just plain fun in living. Hermione can be as serious and as successfull as she wants, but how tedious will that life become with out any fun? ...without Ron. Ron is not serious. But he doesn't have to be serious, and that is a wonderful luxury he has by circimstance of life. That is a poverty of life that Harry and Hermione share. But Ron is not greedy, he is more that willing to share the luxury and joy of not being serious with his friends. Very generous I would say. So in conclusion, NO ONE say Ron is 'not good enough' on my watch. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn, who thinks Ron too, is hero and champion. From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 10:37:16 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (The Real Makarni ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:37:16 -0000 Subject: Was Barty!Moody's plans for Harry - DADA teachers--Is Fleur as DADA Teacher In-Reply-To: <65.53d7569.2b37f6fb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alexpie at a... wrote: > Fleur seems to me enormously unskilled in tackling the Dark Arts. She never > bested the other TriWizard candidates and, indeed, when it meant most to her, > couldn't manage a simple spell of any kind to save Gabrielle. What in the > world could she teach Hogwarts students, except what not to do? > Mind you, I think canon has shown that she's quite a nice girl, once she > overcame her shyness/haughtiness (either/both?), but a teacher? I think not! I agree with you wholeheartedly that Fleur is unlikely to be a DADA teacher, mainly because I belive that Dumbledore is going to put someone from the "old crowd" in that position. However, Fleur isn't totally incompetent. I TBAYed a pair of theories *ages* ago, examining other possibile subject areas for her to teach. Look at the first task with the dragons- Fleur was able to use a charm that put the dragon to sleep. She was able to control the dragon the best out of the four (at least in my opinion), and this means she could be adept at CoMC. This also shows that she is adept at charms- not only is she able to charm the dragon, she uses the bubble-head charm (and still gets half points in doing so), and we don't know how she performed in the final task. Add into that mix her natural Veela "charm", and you have yourselves a potential Charms professor. Of course, that would necessitate the fall of Prof. Flitwick. . . See ya Roo From noir_l at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 08:31:44 2002 From: noir_l at yahoo.com (lindsay L) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:31:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Secret Keeper and hagrids age In-Reply-To: <000f01c2a9ef$654e3fa0$78edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: <20021223083144.84905.qmail@web11406.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48713 BoBaFeTT wrote: I didnt look to see if this had been a topic before but I assume Harry had a secret keeper protecting him but who was it? My guess is either Mrs. Figg or more likely Prof. Dumbledore. Mrs. Figg has what some would call an unhealthy afinity for cats could they be some piece of this puzzle? Hi There! Alright, I'm coming out from lurking in the shadows here. I also have not been apart of this group long, so I to am unsure if this has beem mentioned but personally if Harry has a secret keeper I think it's Snape. Perhaps this is his "mission" or a part of it. Rowling likes to give us surprises and this would be one! Also, it protects both Snape and Harry. If Voldemort wants Snape dead, he will not want to kill him until he gets the secret or he'll never find Harry! So as long as Snape keeps this secret, both him and Harry are safe. Just a thought. Sincerely, Lindsay --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From corsa808 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 08:37:02 2002 From: corsa808 at yahoo.com (infiniT ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:37:02 -0000 Subject: Wands/Marauder's Map/Pet Snuffles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48714 about Wands--Cheryl says: "On that, I'm sure LV did know about Priori Incantatem, but...he had no reason to expect to experience it. He had, at that point, no way of knowing that his wand and Harry's shared a core." *smacks self in forehead* I was thinking about that today (post post) and realized the same thing. How *could* he have known what Harry's wand was made of? Sometimes I can be such a dunderhead! about the MM--Cheryl again: "Then, I began to wonder about the Map itself. It seems to have several levels of use.... So, I wonder if, in fact the Map doesn't have a third level....Perhaps there's a level that only one of the Marauders can activate...There may even have been a fourth level. Possibly each of them created a level." This makes total sense....kind of like the different Charms that were put on the PS/SS...that might explain it. Yet another question: How did Crouch Jr-as-Moody know how to operate it? That has probably been discussed before so no need to answer... and, about Snuffles as a pet--Laura said: "Not sure exactly how plausible Snuffles would be as a new pet...but I love it!" me *commenting on the whole "pet Snuffles" idea*: Me too! In GoF, (Ch. 36, "The Parting of the Ways") Dumbledore tells Madame Pomfrey, "This dog will be remaining with Harry for a while..." Which leads me to subscribe to the theory that it *was* intended for Sirius to hang out at Hogwarts. But later, after Fudge's reaction, he (Dumbledore) says, "...Fudge's attitude, though not unexpected, changes everything. Sirius, I need you to set off at once." t *thrilled that my first post went well!* 8~) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Dec 23 12:40:51 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 07:40:51 EST Subject: Marauder's Map Message-ID: <93.28126fa6.2b385e53@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48715 In a message dated 23/12/2002 11:00:42 GMT Standard Time, corsa808 at yahoo.com writes: > > Yet another question: How did Crouch Jr-as-Moody know how to operate > [the Marauder's Map] That has probably been discussed before so no need to > answer... > I'm not sure that it has, actually. I was wondering the same thing myself the other day, until I recalled that the Map was already activated at the time that Crouch-Moody took posession of it. I presume that as he didn't know how to wipe it clean, he just kept it in its active state. Like Cheryl, what I *would* like to know, however, is how the twins learned to operate it. My theory is that it recognised suitable owners in Fred and George and instructed them in its use. When they found it in Filch's filing cabinet was it active, or inactivated? If it was inactive, how did Filch know it was "highly dangerous"? If it was active, why didn't Filch use it himself in his constant war against the students, instead of filing it away? Surely it would have been exceedingly tempting for a Squib with such an insatiable desire to get students into trouble to have in his control such a useful and powerful piece of magic. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kristen at sanderson-web.com Mon Dec 23 13:51:00 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:51:00 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: <93.28126fa6.2b385e53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > In a message dated 23/12/2002 11:00:42 GMT Standard Time, corsa808 at y... > writes: > > > When they found it in Filch's filing cabinet was it active, or inactivated? > If it was inactive, how did Filch know it was "highly dangerous"? > If it was active, why didn't Filch use it himself in his constant war against > the students, instead of filing it away? Surely it would have been > exceedingly tempting for a Squib with such an insatiable desire to get > students into trouble to have in his control such a useful and powerful piece > of magic. > > ~Eloise I think you answered your own question :). The map must have been inactivated otherwise Filch would have used it. I would guess that anything Filch doesn't recognize, he would consider "highly dangerous". Kristen From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Dec 23 14:54:37 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C. ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:54:37 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48717 "Neville, are you in here?" Harry glanced around the darkened dorm, whispered "Lumos" to light his wand, and peered toward Neville's bunk. "Yeah." "Listen, Neville," Harry began. "I just talked to Dumbledore. He told me about what happened to your parents. I'm terribly sorry about that. But listen. How come you never told me? I mean, we're pals, we share the same dorm, yet you never said a word." "Huh?" Neville blinked. "Your parents," Harry demanded. "Tell me about your parents!" "Uh . . . You mean Frank and Marissa, my mom and dad?" Harry sighed impatiently. "Yes, Neville." "Well, they don't do much. They just lie in their beds at St. Mungo's and all. They're not the warm and friendly type or anything. They don't recognize me, I don't recognize them, so it's kind of boring, really." Neville shrugged. "You don't remember what happened the night they were attacked?" "They were attacked?" Neville repeated. "You know, I *knew* they should have beefed up security at St. Mungo's. Anyone could just walk right into that place and ?-" "Neville!" Harry cried. "I don't mean they were attacked at St. Mungo's, for cryin' out loud! I mean they were attacked after Voldemort fell! In your house! When you were but a small child! And you watched the whole thing! Remember!?" Neville hesitated, thinking hard. "Nah, doesn't ring a bell, Harry. Sorry." Neville pulled the curtains around his four-poster and lay back down. Soon, his snores filled the room. **************** See, I've always thought that the idea that Neville has a memory charm isn't very, er . . . . what's the word? . . . explosive. The events on the night the Longbottoms were attacked are likely very exciting, yet if Neville has a memory charm, there is hardly any chance that there will be a climactic and explosive scene when Harry confronts Neville about it -- as we all know he will in OoP. Cindy ************** For the best in fanfic, check out: http://www.fictionalley.org//fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php? &threadid=312 For lots more on Memory Charmed Neville, check out Messages 36772 ("Still Life With Memory Charm") and 38812, 38813 and 38848 ("Memory Charm Symposium"). From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 14:57:55 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:57:55 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48718 Steve, in spirited and eloquent defense of Ron:"So, you think the Ron we see at 11 or for that matter 14, is the only Ron there will ever be. That his character and ablilities are fully developed now, and there is no hope for improvement? I think not." Ron doesn't need "improvement" in the sense he's behind the curve. We have every reason to think he does well at school, he has accomplishments of his own, and, as you pointed out, he is courageous and loyal to his best friend. Steve again:"There is no chance that Ron will get to display outstanding heroism AGAIN? He's shown outstanding heroism. selflessness, and nobility in sacificing his life to help Harry protect the Stone." [Steve goes on to list a variety of accomplishments Ron might have in his future.] We have every reason to think Ron will show his heroism again (and don't forget his resolution and decisiveness). All the good things you predict are likely to happen. BUT: When we're discussing how these characters might be suited as significant others for each other, though, we have to take them as they are now; that's what makes shipping discussions speculative. The fourteen/fifteen year old Ron, for all his realized and potential good qualities, has vulnerabilities that I think will cause problems for Ron and Hermione both in a relationship. It's not what Ron really is that's the problem, it's how he thinks of himself, and he's sitting in the shadow of the top student and the number one celebrity of his world. That's a lot to ask of any fourteen year old male psyche. "So in conclusion, NO ONE say Ron is 'not good enough' on my watch... bboy_mn, who thinks Ron too, is hero and champion." No problem there, brother. Jim From Lynx412 at aol.com Mon Dec 23 16:02:57 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:02:57 EST Subject: LV & Priori Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48719 In a message dated 12/23/02 6:00:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, corsa808 at yahoo.com writes: > *smacks self in forehead* > I was thinking about that today (post post) and realized the same thing. > How *could* he have known what Harry's wand was made of? Sometimes I can be > such a dunderhead! [snicker] Think how LV must have felt...only time in the entire cannon I felt sorry for him. I mean...he'd WON! He was back in his body, his DEs were there, groveling and cowering, his undercover DE had fooled DD for a full school year and snatched Harry from under DD's nose right out of Hogwarts, he'd destroyed the protection Harry's Mom gave him, all he has to do is AK the little brat...why shouldn't he gloat...then, his wand fights back? His own, finally regained wand betrays him! And the stupid KID wins the Priori battle, forcing LV's wand to start expelling all those spells. It's almost enough to make an evil overlord start looking for a new line of work... Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From melclaros at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 16:13:02 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:13:02 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: <8t5hlc+mst3@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan McGee" wrote: > > So, how come the map recognizes Snape and insults him? Because > the four Marauders set it up to do that in case their schoolmate > Snape ever tried to use the map. > And this is what I've been thinking all along: I'm reaching here... perhaps really reaching and might have to dodge canon fire, but I was skimming that section of POA the other day for some reason and ONCE AGAIN (I thought this the first time I read it) got the distinct impression that Snape knew *exactly* who had created the map in the 1st place. THAT's why he called Lupin, although he was lucky to have, in Harry's presence the "cover" of Lupin's DADA position. (Snape to Lupin: "don't you think he got it *directly from the manufacturers?*"--JKR's emphasis) which was followed shortly thereafter by Lupin telling Harry that the mapmakers would "have wanted to *lure you out*...*they'd have found it amusing*". (my emphasis) I thought the first time I read this the the MMap was part of "the prank" and the reason it is so "tuned in" to Snape is because it was designed to be that way in the first place. That may not have been it's SOLE purpose, but I'm pretty convinced it was one of it's primary ones. Melpomene From melclaros at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 16:21:54 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:21:54 -0000 Subject: will we ever know.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi " wrote: > Hi all, I am curious if anyone else here has speculated who was the > head of house of Slytherin during Snape's time. Since it has been > stated that Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins who were all > DeathEaters, doesn't it seem that the head of house at that time You know, I just had the most amazing thought. What if it was Dumbledore! That would be something, wouldn't it? Think about it. He was integral in the Tom Riddle story and was "only" a professor then...hmmmm. He's very close to Snape and they have a very intimate relationship (and NO I don't mean LIKE THAT for all you...well you know who you are! ;-)) A father-son relationship like theirs could certainly develop in that situation. I doubt it's the case really, but it would be pretty cool, don't you think? From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Dec 23 17:04:38 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63 ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:04:38 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48722 "Neville, are you in here?" Harry glanced around the darkened dorm, muttered "Lumos" to light his wand, and crept toward Neville's bunk. "Yeah." "Can I talk to you for a minute? But let's go down to the common room. This is just between you and me." Neville stumbled out of bed, clumsily pulled on his robe, and followed Harry into the common room, where they sat down in matching armchairs. "Listen, Neville," Harry began. "I just talked to Dumbledore. He told me about what happened to your parents. I'm terribly sorry about that. But listen. How come you never told me? I mean, we're pals, we share the same dorm, yet you never said a word." "Huh?" Neville blinked. "Your parents," Harry demanded. "Tell me about your parents!" The blood drained out of Neville's face and he began to tremble. "I don't know what you mean," he whispered. Harry couldn't tell if Neville was lying or if he was just startled because of the late hour. "I heard about the four people who went to Azkaban because they tortured your parents," Harry persisted. Neville's eyes unfocused. His lips began to move, and Harry barely made out the words: "Someone tortured my parents?" "Well, that's why they're in St. Mungo's isn't it?" Neville didn't answer for awhile. He seemed to be staring at something far away, and his fists clenched around his robe. "They're in St. Mungo's because they're sick," he said, as if reciting a line from a script. Neville never had been the most alert person Harry had known, but this was weird even for Neville. It occurred to Harry that Dumbledore wasn't kidding when he said that Neville would tell him when he was ready. "Never mind, Neville," Harry whispered. "Let's go back to bed." "Huh?" said Neville, his eyes refocusing on Harry. "Come on." He led Neville back into the dorm, returned to his own bed, and heard Neville lie back down. Harry lay awake for a long time after Neville's rhythmic snores filled the dorm again. Something about the mention of Neville's parents seemed to have triggered something in Neville that made him go all goofy. Had Harry run headlong into a Memory Charm? But as far as Harry knew, people who had Memory Charms only acted strangely right after the charm, like the Muggle at the Quidditch World Cup. If Neville had been charmed, it would have been years ago. On the other hand, what if he had been *forced* to remember? As the sole witness of his parents' torture, Neville would have been able to identify his parents' attackers. What if the Longbottoms' attackers gave *Neville* the Memory Charm, and the Ministry of Magic had to break it to get the necessary information? Harry began to feel dizzy. What if. What if. He turned over and fell asleep, resolving to enlist Hermione tomorrow in finding out more about Memory Charms and Reverse Memory Charms--and if possible, more about the attack on the Longbottoms. But the next morning when Harry woke up, he decided not to pursue the matter further, to leave Neville alone. Dumbledore was right--he'd tell him when he was ready, and not a moment before. ********* See, if Neville had a Memory Charm, he wouldn't remember *anything* about the night his parents were tortured, as Cindy's fic showed. But the Crucio'd spiders and the wailing Egg show that Neville remembers *something* on *some* level about that night. Whether it's a Memory Charm cracking open or an amplified memory or a suppressed memory, Neville isn't totally oblivious to the events of that night. --Dicentra, who will not be having a white Christmas this year ************** For the best in fanfic, check out: http://www.fictionalley.org//fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php?&threadid=312 For lots more on Memory Charmed Neville, check out Messages 36772 and 38398 ("Still Life With Memory Charm") and 38812, 38813 and 38848 ("Memory Charm Symposium"). From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Dec 23 17:08:57 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:08:57 -0800 Subject: SHIP: Why Harry and Hermione are not suited, imo, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34298076746.20021223090857@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48723 Hi, Monday, December 23, 2002, 6:57:55 AM, Jim wrote: > BUT: > When we're discussing how these characters might be suited as > significant others for each other, This line made me laugh, for some reason. It sounds so much like arranged marriage . So you think Ron is wrong for Hermione, but Harry is right? Except, it doesn't really feel this way to me. > we have to take them as > they are now; that's what makes shipping discussions speculative. Take Harry's and Hermione's interaction as they are now, and look at the way Hermione gets impatient with Harry's lack of drive and how Harry doesn't really enjoy his time alone with her all that much and instead of telling her the truth about wanting to do something else (like Ron certainly would), he evades her using little lies. And Harry doesn't show much appreciation for Hermione's help. She's a great help, intellectually, except she can go overboard and doesn't know when to stop and take a break. Emotionally, Hermione has a lot to learn. She doesn't always have a good concept about other people's feelings and how to make them feel better, instead of worse. What works for herself doesn't necessarily work for others Even Harry, in his situation (or especially Harry) needs to step back from all the gloom and doom and do something relaxing, without being made to feel guilty for not thinking about his problems. As they are now, Harry and Hermione are good friends (though for Hermione's sake, I hope Harry starts being a bit more appreciative of her in the future!), but romantically they don't seem "made for each other". Of course, JKR *could* change everything in the future, but the signs aren't pointing that way, so far. Ah, it will be great to add some new canon as discussion fodder, soon! ...what do you mean, we still don't have a release date? ;) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 17:17:05 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:17:05 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: <93.28126fa6.2b385e53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48724 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > In a message dated 23/12/2002 11:00:42 GMT Standard Time, > corsa808 writes: > > > > Yet another question: How did Crouch Jr-as-Moody know how to > > operate [the Marauder's Map] That has probably been discussed > > before so no need to answer... > > > eloiseherisson replied: > > I'm not sure that it has, actually. I was wondering the same thing > myself the other day, until I recalled that the Map was already > activated ... edited... > > > Like Cheryl, what I *would* like to know, however, is how the twins > learned to operate it. My theory is that it recognised suitable > owners in Fred and George and instructed them in its use. > > When they found it in Filch's filing cabinet was it active, or > inactivated? > ...edited... > > ~Eloise bboy_mn responds (although somewhat too late): 1.) Map On/Off - Eloise is right, the map was already turned on when Fake!Moody got it. He didn't know how to operate it; that is, he couldn't turn it on or off. 2.) Fred/George and the Map - I have no problem hearing Fred say to the map as a joke 'I solemnly swear I am up to no good.' That sounds exactly like something Fred would say. We don't know how long it took them to get the map working; maybe a year. I could see them stumbling on to the "ON switch" by accident, then searching out the 'off switch' by process of elimination; 'turn off', 'it's over', 'we're finished', 'the deed is done', 'mischief managed'. You have to admit that Fred/George and the map are a perfect match. What that old saying? Ah yes, "Great minds think alike". 3.) Filch and the Map - someone speculated recently that the map was in 'insult' mode when Filch found it. The map insulted Filch the way it insulted Snape. Which would certainly explain why Filch thought it was dangerous. Can't prove a word of this, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 17:34:44 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:34:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why no one's right for anyone--right now (was: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021223173444.73572.qmail@web13004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48725 "Jim Ferer " wrote: Steve, in spirited and eloquent defense of Ron:"So, you think the Ron we see at 11 or for that matter 14, is the only Ron there will ever be. That his character and ablilities are fully developed now, and there is no hope for improvement? I think not." Ron doesn't need "improvement" in the sense he's behind the curve. We have every reason to think he does well at school, he has accomplishments of his own, and, as you pointed out, he is courageous and loyal to his best friend. Steve again:"There is no chance that Ron will get to display outstanding heroism AGAIN? He's shown outstanding heroism. selflessness, and nobility in sacificing his life to help Harry protect the Stone." [Steve goes on to list a variety of accomplishments Ron might have in his future.] We have every reason to think Ron will show his heroism again (and don't forget his resolution and decisiveness). All the good things you predict are likely to happen. BUT: When we're discussing how these characters might be suited as significant others for each other, though, we have to take them as they are now; that's what makes shipping discussions speculative. The fourteen/fifteen year old Ron, for all his realized and potential good qualities, has vulnerabilities that I think will cause problems for Ron and Hermione both in a relationship. It's not what Ron really is that's the problem, it's how he thinks of himself, and he's sitting in the shadow of the top student and the number one celebrity of his world. That's a lot to ask of any fourteen year old male psyche. Me: I'm uncertain as to why people think Ron is any worse than Hermione and Harry at this point in his life. First, I think that JKR has purposefully put Ron at his low point in GoF, as it is the middle book in the series of seven. (He's got nowhere to go but up.) Think of Ron from the first three books: he sacrifices himself to let Ron and Hermione continue on when they're trying to reach the stone, he braves the Forbidden Forest and giant spiders, then goes into the unknown with Harry and Lockhart to save his sister, not to mention taking Polyjuice Potion earlier. (What if it had been botched? Who knows what they could have turned into! Look what happened to Hermione because of the cat hair.) Then he offers himself to be killed by Sirius Black, along with Harry and Hermione, in PoA, and does so whilst withstanding the pain of a broken leg. All of this is in stark contrast to the Ron we get in GoF; a Ron who suspects Harry is lying about putting his name into the Goblet, a Ron who cannot articulate his feelings for Hermione and instead goes into rages about her "fraternizing with the enemy," a Ron who succumbs to Fleur's veela-wiles anytime she's around...Who didn't want to smack Ron at some point during GoF? But I think this just shows that if you take a passel of kids from ages 11 to 18, at some point in there, you're going to find them insufferable. I wouldn't wish 14/15 year old Ron on ANY poor girl, frankly. (And I wouldn't wish 14/15 year old Hermione or Harry on anyone either.) What a nightmare. And perhaps the reason for JKR's portrayal of him at this age is because HE sees this too (but can't articulate it). He's not ready for the things Hermione thinks she's ready for. I said "thinks she's ready for" because I'm not so sure Hermione's ready, either. Or Harry. They're all floundering about at this point. Hermione didn't handle quite a lot of things very well, from Ron's reaction to her going to the ball with Krum to Rita Skeeter (which encounter resulted in her being pilloried in the press and receiving a letter containing bubotuber pus). Harry didn't do well either, frankly, waiting until the last moment to get a date to the ball and then ignoring her the entire evening while he ogled Cho Chang. Now THERE'S a great date! In short--they're all a disaster at this point, having no idea how to calmly speak to someone for whom they have feelings (or not) to discuss those feelings. But when have you met a 14 or 15 year old who could? So it's really all perfectly age-appropriate. Krum is showing his age when he speaks to Harry about Hermione--he's mature enough to just walk up to Harry and speak his mind, voice his concerns. Which just goes to show that he's far too old for Hermione at this point--the usually-rational girl failed miserably in speaking to Ron in a calm manner after the ball. Whether she said what she did because she was genuinely upset that he didn't ask her or because he was just being a pain in the arse, she just plain didn't handle it well, basically stooping to Ron's level and turning the whole thing into a screaming match. I think it's impossible to say just how Ron will grow and change, as he undoubtedly will, and who he may be suited for or unsuited for. For some reason there's an assumption that Hermione and Harry are done growing and changing, that their 14/15 year old selves are the people they're going to be for the rest of their lives. I certainly hope not! They're not likely to stay the same either, we should remember. (If JKR gets it right, and I have faith in her on this.) So to say with any certainty that traits Ron possesses now will make him unsuited to Hermione or that traits Harry possesses now will make him suited to Hermione in the future when none of them are liable to be the same at the end of OotP as they were at the end of GoF is a bit of a leap of logic, I feel. I, for one, would not be a bit surprised if, at the end of the seventh book, JKR has all three of them decide, after going through various permutations of boyfriend/girlfriend, that they work best as just friends. That's assuming that they all live, of course. JKR's rather fond of poking fun of people who DO assume this. As I really do want them all to live, I'd be quite happy to have fun poked at me for this. If I had to choose between two of them winding up in a permanent romance and all three of them living, I'll take them all living every time. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 23 17:49:08 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:49:08 -0000 Subject: SHIP (with some FF) Re: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48726 > Pippin responding to Eb:"Now see, this is where I think H/H becomes canon-challenged. You seem to be saying that Hermione would be suitable for Harry onlyif he comes through with his fame and his power intact. I agree." Jim: > I see Hermione as one of the few people who would be past all that. I believe she knows Harry better than perhaps any of his contemporaries, and accepts him completely for who he is. She's very clear on what she believes, and if he's worshipped or reviled, he's the same Harry as far as she's concerned. She depends on nobody else for what she thinks.<< Maybe what people think isn't important to Hermione. But it's very important to Harry. His fear of failure, and of being seen to fail, is intense. Let me put it this way. Once Voldemort is defeated, do you think Harry would want to live on in the wizarding world if his powers or his reputation were lost beyond recall? I think he would rather go back to the Muggle world than have to live in the magical world without magic, or if he was "stained" as Ebony put it. But do you think Hermione would want to live as a Muggle if that was the only way she could be with him, or is her life as a witch more important to her? May she be spared such a choice! But I haven't yet heard from anyone who thinks Hermione would be the ideal match for Harry under such circumstances. Yet why not, if love is all that matters? Pippin From potter76 at libero.it Mon Dec 23 18:05:38 2002 From: potter76 at libero.it (Rita) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:05:38 +0100 (ora solare Europa occ.) Subject: Chessmen Message-ID: <3E075072.000005.38181@i3a2c5> No: HPFGUIDX 48727 I was rereading Stone and when I reached the chess game at the end a question occurred to me, I'm quite sure it must have been discussed in the past so if anyone could make a little summary or point to a message I'd really appreciate it. I have to say that I can't play chess, I know more or less how it works but that's it; so my question is this: what's the significance of the pieces Ron chose for himself and his friends to 'be'? Why Hermione is a castle, Harry a bishop and Ron a knight? What's the role of these pieces in the game and how could it relate to HRH characteristics? Is there something like a 'safest chessman' one that is least likely to get take and damaged and so could have been very well chosen by Ron so to make sure that at least one of them could make it to the end? R. Happy holidays all!!!! P.S. Thanks Steve for your passionate defense of Ron!! I was kind of moved by it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrleach74 at msn.com Mon Dec 23 18:28:22 2002 From: mrleach74 at msn.com (gryffindor02356 ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:28:22 -0000 Subject: When did Barty Crouch, Jr. go over to the Dark Side? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48728 Having read GoF numerous times, I become further intrigued with Barty Jr.'s character, but many questions still remain. Was he ever good? When did he go bad? Was he a student at Hogwarts? According to Barty, Sr., while under the Imperius Curse, "Yes, my son has recently gained 12 OWLs, most satisfactory indeed." If he was at Hogwarts, what house was he in and who were his friends? It appears that he was a little younger than Bertha Jorkins, Snape and the Marauders (Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs) and was studying there at the same time they were. It seemed that he had much going for him until he blew it, going to the Dark Side. Did he and his father have some falling out, which made him go bad? Was he abused? Was there a love interest that he lost??? I believe that there is a hidden story between really young Barty, Jr. and the current Barty, Jr., having been exposed as a fraud. Also, once he received the Dementor's Kiss, it was said that he now exists as soulless and evil. Does that mean that Voldemort can still have him on the DE squad? What exactly becomes of Barty Jr.'s character? Has he been turned into a Dementor, being soulless and evil? Matt aka. gryffindor02356 From Lynx412 at aol.com Mon Dec 23 19:10:14 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:10:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauder's Map Message-ID: <128.1e7efa5c.2b38b996@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48729 In a message dated 12/23/02 12:20:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: > 3.) Filch and the Map - someone speculated recently that the map was in > 'insult' mode when Filch found it. The map insulted Filch the way it > insulted Snape. Which would certainly explain why Filch thought it was > dangerous. I think this is the best answer as to why he confiscated what was apparently a plain sheet of parchment, but not why he thought it was dangerous. I think he thought it was dangerous because of *who* he confiscated it from. I know many folks here think it was Lupin who had it or that it was Lupin's copy, if there were more than one, but I wonder if it isn't more likely that he got it from Sirius. If he'd caught Sirius with it, confiscated it, and it started insulting him, he'd have taken it, especially if it called him a squib. But he would only have decided it was *highly dangerous* after Sirius seemed to have betrayed the Potters and gone over to the Dark Side. He then moved it to the file where Fred & George found it. I don't recall if canon says when the found it, but if it was the year that Harry entered Hogwarts, Filch might have been checking the parchment to see if it was reacting to Harry, perhaps planning to tell Dumbledore about it. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Dec 23 19:12:30 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:12:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chessmen Message-ID: <77.562545a.2b38ba1e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48730 In a message dated 23/12/2002 18:11:59 GMT Standard Time, potter76 at libero.it writes: > have to say that I can't play chess, I know more or > less how it works but that's it; so my question is this: what's the > significance of the pieces Ron chose for himself and his friends to 'be'? > Why Hermione is a castle, Harry a bishop and Ron a knight? Well, I'm a lousy chess player, but I would say that each side has *two* of each of the pieces chosen and that during a game it is quite likely that a strategic decision to lose *one* of each of them may be taken relatively early, whilst attempting to retain at least *one* of each as they move in quite different ways. Pawns, of course are frequently sacrificed. So other than the royal pieces, the knight, bishop and rook give the best chance of keeping the three players on the board whilst also making strategic sacrifices. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 19:13:31 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:13:31 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chessmen References: <3E075072.000005.38181@i3a2c5> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48731 Well, as a chess enthusiast, although not a professional player, I can make the following points about chess. Its a game where there can be no compromises between the two sides. Total victory is the only option. As such, it is a significant reflection of the Wizarding War with Voldemort, the two sides must fight by placing their peaces in the proper place and then ..... Checkmate. therefore, we could say that Barty Jnr. and Snape are both pieces that have been placed in the right place, ready to strike. Needless to say, the chess metaphor is not perfect. Neither Dumbledore and Voldemort is as helpless as a chess king. They are both the most powerful wizards if their generation. Regarding Ron's choice of pieces for himself and his friends, a Castle is a rock, something to rely on, a bishop is able to walk ways most other pieces cannot and a knight is the subtle piece, with its unique moves. I suspect that that is more of a reflection of Ron's mind, rather than any deeper symbolism. I think about that a bit more. There is not such thing as a safe piece in Chess, unless you count the queen as such. She is the most powerful piece on the board, but even she is not invulnerable or necessary. I don't think that Ron could have banked on a certain peice surviving to the end. However, the real killer peice is the queen, which is alos the one in real danger when mate approaches. On a different note, which teacher set up the chess puzzle? if is was quirralmort, it may provide a reflection of Voldemorts view of the struggle. Chris Merry Christmas to you all. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 23 19:19:40 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:19:40 EST Subject: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) Message-ID: <1bd.18d67af9.2b38bbcc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48732 Melpomene Says something that triggers a theory: > I thought the first time I read this the the MMap was part > of "the prank" and the reason it is so "tuned in" to Snape is because > it was designed to be that way in the first place. > That may not have been it's SOLE purpose, but I'm pretty convinced it > was one of it's primary ones. Holy sh*t! i just had a PRANK THEORY to appeal to Sirius apologists and Snape lovers alike. So, what says that the map *wasn't* part of the prank? you said that you thought it the first time you read it, and if there was something to contradict that, then disregard this post... But what is the Map wasn't just part of the Prank (or one of many lesser jokes played by MWPP on Severus), What if it WAS the prank? So, Sirius has the map; Lupin has gone into the Shrieking shack for his transformation; Severus and Sirius fight over it... Sirius gets angry and walks away, but leaves the map out for severus to see... possibly tuned to the whomping willow? Severus sees the little figure prodding the knot in the wood and sees the passage to lupin... remember, mel paraphrased: "Lupin telling Harry that the mapmakers would "have wanted to *lure you out*...*they'd have found it amusing*". (my emphasis)" Maybe sirius and map!sirius were on the same page on this one? I know there's a big hole in this theory, but I've got a mental block about it right now -Scheherazade, the mad [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Dec 23 19:26:03 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C. ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:26:03 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry and Neville and Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48733 "Hey, Hermione," Harry said. "Got a minute?" Hermione looked up from her Divination Self-Study manual, irritated at the interruption. "What is it Harry? I'm very busy here." Harry pulled up a chair with upholstery that was very similar to the chair in which Hermione was perched. "It's Neville, Hermione. See, Dumbledore just told me that Neville's parents were tortured until they were insane, and he goes to visit them over break. They don't recognize him or anything. And, uh, I wasn't supposed to tell you any of that. Uh-oh." Harry shrugged and plowed ahead recklessly. "Anyway, do you know anything about that?" Hermione sighed in exasperation. "Oh *course* I know about that! Harry, where have you *been* for the last 14 years?" Harry gaped at her. Hermione reached into her bag and pulled out a shiny new book entitled, _Getting Away With Murder: Wicked Wizarding Crimes._ She hurriedly flipped to a page in the middle and ripped it out, brandishing it in front of Harry. "Harry, it's all in here, see. Neville was a very small boy when his parents were attacked. He was right there to witness it. When the authorities arrived, they realized that they had no real way to solve the crime because their only witness couldn't talk. So they put a Reverse Memory Charm -? to enhance his memory -- on Neville so that Neville could identify the perpetrators. That's how Mrs. Lestrange and her gang were caught -- Neville fingered them. Neville remembers his parents' torture very clearly, Harry." "Why didn't he say anything to me about it?" Harry asked, incredulous. "Oh, Neville can't possibly *talk* about what happened, don't you see? That would turn up the dial on his parents' torture way, way up, get it? He'd be living the whole thing all over again. That's why Neville reacted so badly to the egg's wailing and the dementor on the train. No, I think Neville would just prefer that this be his little secret, if at all possible. That's why I've kept quiet, myself." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ One of the most perplexing things about the torture on the Longbottoms is that Neville has kept quiet about it all these years. Oh, sure, some people think this is because Neville has a Memory Charm. But I think it far more likely that Neville has a Reverse Memory Charm and recalls his parents' torture quite well, thank-you-very-much. Also strange is the idea that the popular Frank Longbottom was tortured to insanity, yet this fact seems not to be common knowledge in the wizarding world. I think bookish Hermione does know about Neville's parents and has just decided to keep quiet to preserve Neville's privacy. Cindy -- hoping we can all agree that Neville was way too young to need a memory charm to forget his parents' torture ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For the best in fanfic, check out: http://www.fictionalley.org//fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php? &threadid=312 For lots more on Memory Charmed Neville, check out Messages 36772 and 38398 ("Still Life With Memory Charm") and 38812, 38813 and 38848 ("Memory Charm Symposium"). For more on Reverse Memory Charms, have a look at Messages 38830, 38898, 38921, 39033, 39038, 38890, 38981, 38994, 39014, 39042, 39044, 39076, 39143, 39149, 39150, 39179, 39247. From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 19:37:04 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:37:04 +0000 Subject: (FILK) The Age Restriction Line Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48734 The Age Restriction Line (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _I Saw Her Standing There_ by the Beatles) Dedicated to Lilac...Get well soon! Fred and George: Well, we're not quite seventeen But we had a great scheme We're underage, but it sure was worth a try We'll put our names into the Goblet (whoooh!) Past the age restriction line We had a notion to use aging potion Only one drop each should make us qualified We'll be entered in the Tournament (whoooh!) Past the age restriction line Well, everything seemed fine When we crossed that line And we thought we had it made... Whoah, before we both knew We were thrown across the room And then we found out our plan had gone awry We sprouted identical white beards (whoooh!) Past the age restriction line Well, everything seemed fine When we crossed that line And we thought we had it made... Whoah, we looked ridiculous And Lee Jordan laughed at us And Dumbledore said our beards they sure looked fine "I warned you to not try and get past (whoooh!) Past my age restriction line." -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 19:43:20 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:43:20 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! ...Really NOT!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer " wrote: > Steve, in spirited and eloquent defense of Ron: > "So, you think the Ron we see at 11 ... ... ... is the only Ron > there will ever be? > > JIM: Ron doesn't need "improvement" ... ... ... > > Steve again: > "There is no chance that Ron will get to display outstanding heroism > AGAIN? > > JIM: We have every reason to think Ron will show his heroism again > ... ... ... > BUT: (Jim continues) > > When we're discussing how these characters might be suited as > significant others for each other, ... ... ... > > The fourteen/fifteen year old Ron, for all his realized and > potential good qualities, has vulnerabilities ... ... ... > > BBOY_MN: "So in conclusion, NO ONE say Ron is 'not good enough' > on my watch... > > bboy_mn, who thinks Ron too, is hero and champion." > > JIM: No problem there, brother. > > Jim bboy_mn back again: "...discussing how ... characters ... suited as significant others..." Well first, glad to see that you are not actually down on Ron, just the relationship. Next, the part you left out, is the part where I answered your question. Both Harry and Hermione are way too serious; they are both too far on one end of the scale. A good relationship needs balance. Frequently people who are in a good relationship will say something to the effect that this other person completes me, he/she makes me whole. In a sense, it is related to the concept that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Without Ron, both Harry and Hermione would be miserable. He, Ron, brings the joy to their lives, he brings the fun, he teaches them to play. HE BRINGS BALANCE. Harry and Hermione together; miserably serious. Ron and Hermione, (or Ron and Harry, if you have slash leanings) is a balance. Hermione balances Ron by adding a serious influence to his life; Ron balances the relationship by adding fun, joy, 'take a break', 'lighten up', 'let me make you laugh'. Together, they are greater than the sum of thier parts. Harry and Hermione together are less than the sum of their parts; they drag each other down. Ron lifts them both up. They both desperately need Ron in their lives. People hint that a driven and successful Hermione (or Harry, if so inclined) couldn't get along with a not so driven, and presumably not so successful Ron. But who says Ron is not or will not be successful? Who says he will not struggle and strive until he is the World Wizard's Chess Champion? Who says he will not be successful in business? I say he will; he will be very successful, but in different way than Hermione. He could even achieve this success with the helpful influence of Hermione, just like Hermione could learn the joy of playful living from the influences of Ron. I could easily see an adult Ron with as much fame and success as either Hermoine or Harry. Although, fame and success in a different forum that either of them. So, so far, I have defended Ron and the possibility of a relationship, but haven't actually said that I think there will be one. What say I? Yes, but it wouldn't be a permanent boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. My intuitions says it will be a teen boy/girl relationship that will not develope into a husband/wife/lover relationship. I think the purpose of relationships in the story will be the story of the struggle and conflict that comes with 'coming of age'. I think to start with, everyone will be infatuated with someone else and ignoring the person who is infatuated with them. Then eventually, the tide will turn and people will be with the people that they should reasonably be with. But, in the end, one day H/H/R will be sitting around having tea, and Ron will say, 'this was all so much easier, when we were just friends'; and so will end the struggle of 'coming of age', and life will go on from there. Because of this element of balance or perhaps counterbalance that I see between H/R, I think a long term or permanent relationship could occur successfully, but I don't think that is where the story will go. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn PS: Ron WILL BE the most famous and revered Weasley who ever lived. They might even build a statue of him in the town square. From melclaros at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 19:59:49 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:59:49 -0000 Subject: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) In-Reply-To: <1bd.18d67af9.2b38bbcc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > Melpomene Says something that triggers a theory: > But what is the Map wasn't just part of the Prank (or one of many lesser > jokes played by MWPP on Severus), What if it WAS the prank? > Ok...ok...that's what I've been thinking all along but I thought I'd get jumped on for saying it. The map WAS the prank. Sure they found other uses for it as well, but...ok, you got me. It sure would explain a lot, wouldn't it? Melpomene From kmapes at uclink.berkeley.edu Mon Dec 23 19:28:19 2002 From: kmapes at uclink.berkeley.edu (ladygvorkosigan ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:28:19 -0000 Subject: SHIP (with some FF) Re: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48737 > > Pippin:"Hermione needs someone who won't feel threatened by her drive > to succeed or perceive her as a rival." > One thing I think is notable that hasn't been mentioned yet is that, although we see Ron acting jealous of Harry, we never see him jealous of Hermione. Rather, he seems downright proud of her at points. He certainly notices and comments on her accomplishments far more than Harry does, and he has yet to do so in a bitter, jealous matter. I think it's equally notable that for all Ron's jealousy of Krum, he's never even given a hint that he sees Harry as a romantic rival. It seems to me that if Rowling were going to use these flaws of Ron's to doom a romantic relationship between Ron and Hermione, she passed up ample opportunity to foreshadow it. Katie From kkearney at students.miami.edu Mon Dec 23 20:29:36 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:29:36 -0000 Subject: Wands/Marauder's Map/Pet Snuffles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48738 InfiniT asked: >Yet another question: How did Crouch Jr-as-Moody know how to operate > it? Me: He wouldn't need to know. The map was still activated when Harry lent it to him. -Corinth From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 21:03:19 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:03:19 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! ...Really NOT!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48739 Steve:"Next, the part you left out, is the part where I answered your question. Both Harry and Hermione are way too serious; they are both too far on one end of the scale." Can't agree with that, Steve. Harry really wishes he was more ordinary. Hermione *is* serious by nature. When Harry is serious, it's because somebody's idea of good fun is to kill him and take over the world. What is he supposed to do, put a whoopie cushion in a dementor's chair? But it's true, Harry would really like to play Quidditch, duel Ron with a rubber haddock, and get decent grades without going nuts about it. Steve:"He, Ron,brings the joy to their lives, he brings the fun, he teaches them to play. HE BRINGS BALANCE." I agree, partly, but I believe you're overstating it a little. He does that for Harry, who's eager for that balance, but I don't see Hermione swinging the rubber haddock much. Steve:"Harry and Hermione together are less than the sum of their parts; they drag each other down. Ron lifts them both up. They both desperately need Ron in their lives." I disagree very much that Harry/Hermione are less together or drag each other down. They are much greater than the sum of their parts. Hermione, the intellectual, the researcher, both encourager and conscience, and Harry, the instictive talent, the "man of action." We don't see them having fun together that much, it's true, but it's likely to happen offpage. In the pages they're usually trying to keep Harry in one piece. Harry DOES need Ron in his life. Ron is Harry's balance, Ron is the one who gives him normalcy (by himself and as a member of OBHWF), and his foxhole buddy. (Let's hope we see that again in OotP.) In addition, Ron acts as Harry and Hermione's native guide to the wizard world. Steve:"Because of this element of balance or perhaps counterbalance that I see between H/R, I think a long term or permanent relationship could occur successfully, but I don't think that is where the story will go." I don't see R/H as successful in the long term, and I agree this isn't where the story will go. What I can't imagine is any of them getting a mate outside the Trio. After you've spent your adolescence in a maelstrom worthy of a Norse saga, how can an ordinary person compete? From kristen at sanderson-web.com Mon Dec 23 21:10:57 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:10:57 -0000 Subject: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) In-Reply-To: <1bd.18d67af9.2b38bbcc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48740 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > Melpomene Says something that triggers a theory: > > So, Sirius has the map; Lupin has gone into the Shrieking shack for his > transformation; Severus and Sirius fight over it... Sirius gets angry and > walks away, but leaves the map out for severus to see... possibly tuned to > the whomping willow? Severus sees the little figure prodding the knot in the > wood and sees the passage to lupin... > A couple of things... - Severus would have immediately given this to Dumbledore as evidence to expell the marauders. Dumbledore was pretty surprised in GoF when the map was mentioned and since it takes a lot to surprise him, I am guessing that he never heard of it before. - Severus would have recognized the value and pocketed the map - it would have been activated and since he became a DE, he would have no problem using something that looked like dark magic. Personally, I don't see how they would have needed to use the map to entice Severus into following Lupin. It seems like he was very adept at following them without the need for reference. If Sirius did use something like that, he could have created a mini-map that just followed Lupin and not everyone else - even that seems like a dangerous thing to give your enemies. Kristen From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 21:40:14 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:40:14 -0000 Subject: FF: Harry and Neville and Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48741 Cindy:"Also strange is the idea that the popular Frank Longbottom was tortured to insanity, yet this fact seems not to be common knowledge in the wizarding world. I think bookish Hermione does know about Neville's parents and has just decided to keep quiet to preserve Neville's privacy." You have to be correct. There is a large crowd at the LeStrange/Crouch trial, Rita was reporting, so every adult in the wizard world knows all about it. It's the children who were unborn or babies at the time who don't, unless they're Hermiones who come across it in print. I'll bet there are few parents indeed who fill in their children on *that* episode. I think Harry, though, would keep his word not to tell anyone else. He did. He's got a good ethical compass. I also agree Neville remembers all too well what happened. Getting him to talk about it would be almost impossible. From srsiriusblack at aol.com Mon Dec 23 20:52:14 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:52:14 EST Subject: Pets Message-ID: <129.1e63da5e.2b38d17e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48742 In a message dated 23/12/2002 06:00:32 Eastern Standard Time, corsa808 at yahoo.com writes: > and, about Snuffles as a pet--Laura said: > > "Not sure exactly how plausible Snuffles would be as a new pet...but > I love it!" > > me *commenting on the whole "pet Snuffles" idea*: > Me too! > In GoF, (Ch. 36, "The Parting of the Ways") Dumbledore tells Madame > Pomfrey, "This dog will be remaining with Harry for a while..." Which > leads me to subscribe to the theory that it *was* intended for Sirius > to hang out at Hogwarts. Ok. I could see how this *might* work... But if Harry were to keep Sirius as a pet, the rules at Hogwarts would have to change., i.e. eash student is permitted to bring with him if he wishes a cat, a rat, an owl, or a toad. This would cause problems, I think. Imagine how Malfoy and Snape always think that Dumbledore shows favouritism... Suddenly, Harry can have a dog? Not likely. Too many questions would arise... On a different note.... If there are the quoted 1000 students at Hogwarts, and each has some kind of animal... where do all of these animals go to the bathroom? I understand the Owls, but Hermione doesn't bring a litterbox for Crookshanks... Neville's toad just hops about. Scabbers basically lived in Ron's pocket and slept in his bed at night. Is there something I do not know about the pets? Are they magical non-pooping pets? Surely, Filch is not responsible for cleaning up after all of them. He gets angry if there is mud on the floor of the enterance hall. So, maybe it is a weird and particularly icky question, but it is something that has always bothered me. -Snuffles, magical non-pooping dog "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Mon Dec 23 20:46:09 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:46:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands/Marauder's Map/Pet Snuffles Message-ID: <178.13ee99e6.2b38d011@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48743 In a message dated 23/12/2002 15:31:04 Eastern Standard Time, kkearney at students.miami.edu writes: > InfiniT asked: > > >Yet another question: How did Crouch Jr-as-Moody know how to operate > > it? > > Me: > > He wouldn't need to know. The map was still activated when Harry > lent it to him. > > -Corinth > > Right.... Harry has the map under the invisibility cloak when he is trying to find out why Crouch is in Snape's office... His leg gets stuck in the trick stair that always catches Neville, he drops the golden egg, the map- still tapped for use slips from his hands- It was essential when Courch!Moody saw the map activated that he obtain it from Harry... If Harry had kept it, Harry would have been able to see that Crouch was ALWAYS where Moody was supposed to be. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Dec 23 22:06:10 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:06:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! ...Really NOT!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99315912607.20021223140610@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48744 Hi, Monday, December 23, 2002, 1:03:19 PM, Jim wrote: > We > don't see them having fun together that much, it's true, but it's > likely to happen offpage. In the pages they're usually trying to keep > Harry in one piece. I wonder why it is, then, that there is room to see all three of them having fun together, Ron and Harry having fun, and even Ron and Hermione having fun (examples:Harry coming back from Quidditch and seeing them playing chess together; having the time of their lives at Hogsmeade, or looking that way, according to Harry), but not Harry and Hermione. There is surprisingly little about those two having fun together when they are alone. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bobafett at harbornet.com Mon Dec 23 21:57:35 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:57:35 -0800 Subject: Hedwig... References: <129.1e63da5e.2b38d17e@aol.com> Message-ID: <000601c2aace$4fc9b800$64edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48745 Harry said in book 1 he got the name from the History of magic book. Generally people name their pets names that are of people places or things their fond of. I wonder what or who Hedwig is in the books. Anyone know? "BoBaFeTT" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Mon Dec 23 22:31:13 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:31:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hedwig... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48746 Hedwig is the patron saint of orphaned children, in the muggle world. No idea of her exact role in the schoolbook he read, though. 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: "BoBaFeTT" Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:57:35 To: Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hedwig... Real-To: "BoBaFeTT" Harry said in book 1 he got the name from the History of magic book. Generally people name their pets names that are of people places or things their fond of. I wonder what or who Hedwig is in the books. Anyone know? "BoBaFeTT" [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, 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Mon Dec 23 22:56:07 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:56:07 EST Subject: Driver's ED Message-ID: <188.1328ed8e.2b38ee87@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48748 Again, sorry if this has been discussed to death. I've been on here for over a year and I still feel like a newbie XP Anyway, I was just thinking: Where do wizards learn how to drive? Do ones who want to drive take classes with muggles or are their other wizards who teach it? It just seems like an odd thing for them to learn since they can just fly or apparrate, but Arthur Weasley, Fred, George, and Ron and those Ministry wizards can drive a car. Also, why can Mr. Weasley do something as complicated as drive a car, but he needs Harry to help him figure out how to use a 'feletone'? And what happens if a wizard is ever pulled over? ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Mon Dec 23 22:58:27 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:58:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nimbus - 2003: Fandom Culture Panels (we need fans) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48749 There's no such thing as out of the loop on this - far from it! We'd be thrilled to see people of all lengths of time in the fandom serving on the various panels - what better way to have a wide range of perspectives on everything! Also, although hpfgu is the organizing entity behind this, people "from" a wide range of websites have submitted proposals and volunteered for panels, etc. There's no hpfgu-posting-participation requirement at all. So if something catches your eye, whether you're an oldbie, newbie or middle-of-the-roader, please, do participate! Heidi -----Original Message----- From: Denise Dutton Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:52:04 To:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Nimbus - 2003: Fandom Culture Panels (we need fans) Real-To: Denise Dutton > We really need your help... I'd love to help out, and maybe even join a panel. But I've been out of the HPfGU's loop and may be seen as an old timer. Is there anything I can do? I'd volunteer to help in other ways if needed. Just let me know! :) - Denise Dutton (magpie1112) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.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, 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Mon Dec 23 23:02:28 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:02:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Driver's ED References: <188.1328ed8e.2b38ee87@aol.com> Message-ID: <3E079604.3CDB46AE@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48750 IAmLordCassandra at aol.com wrote: > > Again, sorry if this has been discussed to death. I've been on here > for over > a year and I still feel like a newbie XP > > Anyway, I was just thinking: Where do wizards learn how to drive? Do > ones who > want to drive take classes with muggles or are their other wizards who > teach > it? It just seems like an odd thing for them to learn since they can > just fly > or apparrate, but Arthur Weasley, Fred, George, and Ron and those > Ministry > wizards can drive a car. Also, why can Mr. Weasley do something as > complicated as drive a car, but he needs Harry to help him figure out > how to > use a 'feletone'? And what happens if a wizard is ever pulled over? > > ~Cassie~ > Oh, a quick memory spell would do the trick. Make the cop think they pulled him over to ask him if he wanted to buy tickets to the policeman's ball or something. I doubt a wizard need worry about what happens if he gets pulled over. One assumes muggle born wizards learn how to drive from their parents or know where to take classes or whatever. Jazmyn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Mon Dec 23 23:03:00 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:03:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Driver's ED Message-ID: <140.5f0ccd3.2b38f024@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48751 In a message dated 23/12/2002 17:57:52 Eastern Standard Time, IAmLordCassandra at aol.com writes: > Again, sorry if this has been discussed to death. I've been on here for over > > a year and I still feel like a newbie XP > > Anyway, I was just thinking: Where do wizards learn how to drive? Do ones > who > want to drive take classes with muggles or are their other wizards who > teach > it? It just seems like an odd thing for them to learn since they can just > fly > or apparrate, but Arthur Weasley, Fred, George, and Ron and those Ministry > wizards can drive a car. Also, why can Mr. Weasley do something as > complicated as drive a car, but he needs Harry to help him figure out how > to > use a 'feletone'? And what happens if a wizard is ever pulled over? > I don't really think with Floo powder, brooms, and passing the apparating tests that there is any need to learn to drive--- Take a look at the muggle studies.... one of the majour topics of discussion that Hermione brings up is that it is facinating to realise what muggles have had to develop to compensate for tings that wizards have magically... who needs a fellytone, when you cane appear in someone's fire and have a "face to face" conversation? ;) -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 23:11:31 2002 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:11:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: When did Barty Crouch, Jr. go over to the Dark Side? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021223231131.92777.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48752 Matt aka gryffindor02356: > Having read GoF numerous times, I become > further intrigued with Barty Jr.'s character, > but many questions still remain. > It seemed that he had > much going for him until > he blew it, going to the Dark Side. > I believe that there is a hidden story > between really young Barty, Jr. and the current > Barty, Jr., having been exposed as a fraud. Sorry to snip all the interesting questions but I've no answers that are firmly based in canon. As it is, I am unsure how to reconcile the idea of Barty Jr. being the 'faithful servant' that Lord Voldemort kept referring to AND the scene from the Pensieve describing Barty Jr.'s unfaithful denial of involvement in the scheme to find LV. But if we are to do some speculating, perhaps we should keep the following in mind: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GoF, US HB 596th page of 734 'I'm your son!' [Barty Jr.] screamed up at Crouch. 'I'm your son!' 'You are no son of mine!' bellowed Mr. Crouch, his eyes bulging suddenly. 'I have no son!' The wispy witch beside him gave a great gasp and slumped in her seat. She had fainted. Crouch appeared not to have noticed. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GoF, UK PB 517th of 636 What if Barty Sr. is NOT, as most people would read this scene, being histrionic? What if Barty Sr. is telling the truth and nothing but? Of course, the most interesting twist here would be the reveal of Barty Jr.'s real father. I really hope that this would be one of the Riddles to be solved in OoP. If this has been discussed to death already - my apologies... Petra a n :) (BTW, if you don't have either the US hardback or the UK paperback, you just need the number of the last page in your edition to figure out roughly where this passage is. All the info you need has been given. Chant with me now: Fractions are our friends...Fractions are our friends... ) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 23 23:57:05 2002 From: michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk (Michelle Apostolides) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:57:05 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Driver's ED References: <188.1328ed8e.2b38ee87@aol.com> Message-ID: <000e01c2aade$ff256e60$5b362850@ukf974444> No: HPFGUIDX 48754 Anyway, I was just thinking: Where do wizards learn how to drive? Do ones who want to drive take classes with muggles or are their other wizards who teach it? It just seems like an odd thing for them to learn since they can just fly or apparrate, but Arthur Weasley, Fred, George, and Ron and those Ministry wizards can drive a car. Also, why can Mr. Weasley do something as complicated as drive a car, but he needs Harry to help him figure out how to use a 'feletone'? OK, two points ; 1 - In the UK, there is no driver's Ed in school. We have to either learn with someone we know or pay a driving instructor to teach us. There should be driver's ed, though, IMNSHO. 2 - Perhaps the point is that because the feletone is a means of communication which requires different skills, verbal skills, rather than physical ones like driving. Therefore it is not necssarily easy for someone who has never used a phone to know how best to communicate using one. Michelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 00:28:19 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:28:19 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; NOT!! ...Really NOT!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48755 Steve said: > > > "Harry and Hermione together are less than the sum of their arts; they drag each other down. Ron lifts them both up. They both esperately need Ron in their lives." > > > Jim said: > > > I disagree very much that Harry/Hermione are less together or drag each other down. They are much greater than the sum of their parts. Hermione, the intellectual, the researcher, both encourager and conscience, and Harry, the instictive talent, the "man of action." We don't see them having fun together that much, it's true, but it's likely to happen offpage. In the pages they're usually trying to keep Harry in one piece. > > > Sure, Harry and Hermione compliment each other in the "oh-no- Voldemort-wants-to-kill-Harry-and-take-over-the-world-so-we-have-to- stop-him" plot. But they don't seem to enjoy their respective roles with each other in this plot. A point is often made of Hermione and Ron bickering, but what about Harry and Hermione? Hermione, with her intellect and logic, is constantly telling Harry to be more careful. She bosses him around, lectures him on his actions, and rolls her eyes incredulously when he (or Ron, for that matter) can't see the "obvious" solution to the problem. Don't get me wrong, I love Hermione, but she is a tad bit bossy and overpowering, and Harry never takes this very well. He rolls his eyes, cuts her off, or just plain ignores her. So while it's true that they make an amazing team while working together, there is usually a fair amount of friction between them at the same time. -Laura From metslvr19 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 00:40:27 2002 From: metslvr19 at yahoo.com (Laura ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:40:27 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48756 I begin with the necessary apologies if this has been discussed to death...but since OotP is (STILL) in the works, we have to resort to rehashing points anyway, right? =) Am I missing some major plotline, or is CoS fairly irrelevant? Throughout the series, we see rising action and climax throughout the individual books, and rising action in the series as a whole. For example, PS/SS served as an introduction to the characters and the wizarding world, and even showed us a bit of Voldemort. PoA revealed much of the past, including the Prank, MWPP, more information about the death of Harry's parents (all of which we assume will become very important in the rest of the story), and also set up the return of a servant (wormtail) to Voldemort. In GoF, Wormtail's release becomes pertinent, and we have the return of Voldemort. But CoS? Unless I'm missing something, it seems sort of out in the middle of nowhere. Any thoughts? -Laura From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 24 00:22:20 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:22:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Driver's ED Message-ID: <76.27aaee65.2b3902bc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48757 In a message dated 23/12/2002 18:52:54 Eastern Standard Time, michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk writes: > 1 - In the UK, there is no driver's Ed in school. We have to either learn > with someone we know or pay a driving instructor to teach us. There should > be driver's ed, though, IMNSHO. Very true. Americans, as I learned coming here from the UK, also get to drive earlier... which would make the question valid for US people, as ( having taught in the states, I learned) driver's ed is part of the curriculum. But again, I stand by the idea that driving is hardly a necessary skill... Look back before magic carpets were banned by the MoM- they could seat large families... a simple invisibility charm would do the trick... also there is mention of brooms large enough to seat a family- again simple charm.... And, remember Sirius's motorcycle... it flies... I hardly doubt a cop would pull him over ;) That, along with the flying for anglia, makes me think that the wizarding world really wouldn't want to drive normal autos... Take the Knight Bus... no one but Wizards see it because Muggles only see what they want to see--- meanwhile houses are jumping out of the KB's path.... And the Ministry cars slid through traffic with ease and jump to the head of the lines of parked cars... Sounds much better than conventional muggle transport, if you ask me... -Snuffles, now wanting a broom of her own "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 01:18:21 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 01:18:21 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48758 Laura wrote: > Am I missing some major plotline, or is CoS fairly irrelevant? Now me: JKR herself has said that important things happen in CoS, but that we don't know how important those things are just yet. CoS was my least favorite of all of the books until I re-read it enough times to realize just how many fabulous clues JKR provided to us in Book 2. I firmly believe in the "Harry as Heir of Gryffindor" theory, and I think there are many clues in CoS that support this theory. In CoS, Fawkes, who I believe to have once been Gryffindor's phoenix, helps Harry fight the basilisk. In legend, the griffin was believed to be the "adversary of serpent and basilisks, both of which were seen as embodiments of satanic demons" (from the What's in a Name website ? paraphrased from the Dictionary of Symbolism). I believe this to be a parallel to Gryffindor's Fawkes and Slytherin's basilisk, and perhaps a clue to a possible good-against-evil fight between Gryffindor and Slytherin 1,000 years ago. When I brought this up once before, Judy Shapiro added her theory that this could also be a foreshadowing of Harry's eventual defeat of Voldemort. Other clues in CoS that support the "Fawkes was once Gryffindor's phoenix" theory are that Fawkes lives in Dumbledore's office, which has a griffin-shaped doorknocker, and also contains Gryffindor's sword and the Sorting Hat, which we learn in GoF was once Gryffindor's hat. In support of the "Harry as Heir of Gryffindor" theory, in CoS, Fawkes brings two items previously owned by Gryffindor to Harry's aid in the Chamber - the Sorting Hat and the sword. And it's in CoS that we first learn that Gryffindor's first name was "Godric", and can make the connection to the Potters living in Godric's Hollow. In addition, if you parallel the life of St. Godric with Harry, there are all sorts of connections which support the Heir of Gryffindor theory - there are legends about St. Godric protecting a hunted stag which parallel the workings of the Fidelius Charm (and of course, the stag is both James' animagus and Harry's patronus), and St. Godric, like Harry, was able to know of events happening at great distances. ~Phyllis From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Dec 24 01:58:41 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:58:41 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48759 > From: Laura [mailto:metslvr19 at yahoo.com] > Am I missing some major plotline, or is CoS fairly irrelevant? > Throughout the series, we see rising action and climax throughout the > individual books, and rising action in the series as a whole. I think that CoS is very relevant, mostly because we learn so much about Voldemort as a schoolboy, and from knowing his history, we can then begin to understand some of the factors that made him the way he is. We certainly needed the information about Voldemort to understand the climax scene of GoF, and I would suspect that knowing what we learn about him in CoS will be a helpful guide to understanding his actions in the remaining three books. Secondarily, we learn a lot about Lucius Malfoy and his relationship to his son. Moreover, we learn just how deep his involvement with the Dark Arts is as well as his ruthlessness in giving Ginny the diary. I don't think it's "out in the middle of nowhere" at all. Lots of exposition, which isn't so exciting, but very valuable exposition. Suzanne From rinceceol at netzero.net Tue Dec 24 02:12:18 2002 From: rinceceol at netzero.net (rinceceol) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:12:18 -0600 Subject: LV & Priori Message-ID: <006601c2aaf2$8db126c0$f4739d40@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 48760 Cheryl wrote: <<...all he has to do is AK the little brat...why shouldn't he gloat...then, his wand fights back? His own, finally regained wand betrays him!>> I replied: This begs the question...how *DID* Voldemort get his wand back? Where has it been hiding these 13 years? And when he was "killed," separated from his body, whatever, at Godric's Hollow, he would have had to have dropped his wand...so why wasn't it incinerated in the ensuing fire, or taken into custody and/or destroyed by Aurors? Things that make you go "hmm..." ~rinceceol --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 11/8/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Tue Dec 24 02:48:06 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:48:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) Message-ID: <129.1e68e171.2b3924e6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48761 Melpomene says: "Ok...ok...that's what I've been thinking all along but I thought I'd get jumped on for saying it. The map WAS the prank." Hey, i'm not afraid to get jumped!!! it helps refine your theories! Kristen finds the theory's holes.... > A couple of things... > > - Severus would have immediately given this to Dumbledore as evidence > to expell the marauders. > > - Severus would have recognized the value and pocketed the map > > > Personally, I don't see how they would have needed to use the map to > entice Severus into following Lupin. And I refurbish the theory: Maybe Sirius left the map out, on insult mode, to bait Severus. While he was being insulted by the map, Severus might have asked something about how Lupin's always sneaking off. Then, Map!Padfoot said something like, "Well, if you *really* want to know, just prod the knot of the whomping willow, that'll do it for you!" This would go along with the map being possibly a dark object, like Riddle's diary. Although the Marauders didn't mean ill by the map, their mapselves have no qualms about sending people into direct danger... again i use melopomene's paraphrasing "Lupin telling Harry that the mapmakers would "have wanted to *lure you out*...*they'd have found it amusing*"." OOh, I think this theory just got a little bit better. Anyone else want to point out holes? -Scheherazade [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Dec 24 03:01:04 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:01:04 -0600 Subject: Small FF reference; SHIP: H/H vs R/H References: Message-ID: <039701c2aaf8$b28e5980$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 48762 Hi -- Jodie said: > K, but I'm just speculating on what I think will happen in the > world of the books. By the end of book seven, they will all still > only be seventeen, and whoever they happen to have been in love with > when they were fourteen will still be relevant. Heidi already mentioned JKR's plans for an epilogue, but in any case, I'd just add that I would wager most 17 yr olds probably can't even remember who they fancied at age 14. Romances at age 14 will be a thing of the long ago past to our 17-yr old characters I'd guess. Before I turn to the true shipping, let me comment on Susanne's comment: <<>>>> Actually, I don't think that *has* happened so very much as yet, because there's been no new canon to challenge fanfic assumptions. I think it almost certainly *will* happen though. The true explosion in HP fanfic occurred after GoF. Okay, so SHIPS and whether Harry and Hermione have fun and whether or not Ron is well-suited to Hermione: Ebony speculated: <<<>>>> I would add to that: and the woman *Harry* is most likely to prefer is (b) ...... because Harry is quite uncomfortable with his shadow and his fame. I think Harry would want to be involved with someone who was accomplished in her own right. I don't think he would *want* a romantic partner who was retiring and in his shadow, etc. Pippin said: <<>>>> I don't know why you assume that Hermione would only be interested in him because of his fame and power. I think it's the reverse: he would be interested in *her* because she could hold her own with his fame/power. If he didn't have that fame or power or was somehow "stained" as it were, I don't think it would make a bit of difference to Hermione. I think *she* quite clearly respects her friend Harry, not the Boy Who Lived. A big "me too" to what Jim Ferer wrote on this topic. Pippin: <<<>>>>>>>> I think she'd make just as successful and assertive a muggle as witch, so yes, I'd still plump for H/H under that scenario, Pippin. I don't think her life as a witch is the key to Hermione, who is above all a very compassionate and sensitive person. I agree with every word that Jim Ferer has written about why the R/H ship just doesn't work, IMO. I don't think Ron's ego and self-esteem can handle a relationship with Hermione over the short-term. Now whether he will develop sufficient self-esteem to let her blossom and thrive in her own right ....... maybe. But, evaluating 14-yr old Ron from GoF, I sure wouldn't lay odds that a R/H relationship will make it into their 6th year. Barb wrote on this point: <<<>>>>> I certainly wouldn't argue that any of the characters (the adolescent ones that is) are done growing and changing! Goodness. No, that's my basic point. Why on earth would JKR pair off 2 sets of hormonal teenagers for *life*, starting at age 14/15? It really does not strike me that she's going to do this either. Her interview comment ("He's only 14 so he has plenty of time to change his mind") very *clearly* signals that she doesn't plan to pair off the characters into life-long partnerships, starting in early adolescence. So .... onward with that R/H ship in OoP I say. Yeah, I'll drink to *that*! Hardly likely to last, given the realities of teenage romances, is it? No, I think JKR would know as well as anyone that relationships formed in teenage years are highly unlikely to last or succeed (sure, there are exceptions ...... but not many statistically speaking). People change *so* much in their 20s (in my experience anyway) ...... and JKR herself had a failed marriage from her 20s. As for Harry and Hermione, I like them as a pair based on reasonable extrapolations of their future selves (not that I wouldn't cheer for a canon-based H/H relationship ..... but again, it would make it that much less likely to be the "real thing"). Barb is right that it's impossible to completely accurately extrapolate at this point, and there's no guarantee that any fan's extrapolation would mesh precisely with what JKR might have in mind, but based on my own personal experiences and reading of the characters, I'd say that H/H is a much better pairing on a number of levels. Now, on to whether Harry and Hermione have fun together: Jim said: <<<<>>>>>>>> I agree with all of the above, but I'd add that there *are* instances of Harry teasing Hermione into having more fun and the two of them being light-hearted together. The first that comes to mind without searching through the books with this in mind is in PoA: when Harry sneaks into Hogsmeade, Hermione frets about his safety. It's not Ron who forces her to let up; it's Harry ...... by teasingly saying, "So, are you going to turn me in?" and flashing a grin her way. She naturally relents and goes on to have a good time. The second was one that I was just listening to on the GoF tapes the other day: the time when Hermione says that Harry is supposed to work out the Egg's clue on his own. "I was supposed to work out how to get past the dragon on my own, too," Harry muttered so only Hermione could hear him, and she grinned rather guiltily. I'm sure there are other instances as well, though those are the 2 that come most readily to mind at the moment. Laura argued: <<<<>>>>>>> Do you have any specific examples that you might quote? I think you're generalizing based on Hermione in PS/SS is why I ask -- I think her character's become far less bossy and I certainly don't remember any eye-rolling on the part of either Harry or Hermione. And, I can't think off-hand of any instances when he ignores her advice. Again, maybe it's just perception, but I see Harry and Hermione as having fun together and I don't see their relationship as particularly sibling-like. I *do* see R/H as having behavior patterns that put me in mind of siblings though. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Tue Dec 24 03:03:51 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 22:03:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Driver's ED Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48763 In a message dated 12/23/2002 5:58:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, IAmLordCassandra at aol.com writes: > It just seems like an odd thing for them to learn since they can just fly > or apparrate, but Arthur Weasley, Fred, George, and Ron and those Ministry > wizards can drive a car. First off, the anglia is an enchanted car, and seems very aware of it's surroundings. It can drive itself in the forbidden forest, and i don't think that is something brought on by the crash itself. I think that the car pretty much drove itself, with just a little directions from the driver. The ministry cars, on the other hand, are wizarding cars, and not muggle ones. I'd expect that wizards learn to drive these in the usual way, but i would expect that they are rather expensve, because no individual wizarding families seem to have them. -Scheherazade [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 24 03:25:17 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:25:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Small FF reference; SHIP: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: <039701c2aaf8$b28e5980$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> References: <039701c2aaf8$b28e5980$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: <148335063141.20021223192517@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48764 Hi, Monday, December 23, 2002, 7:01:04 PM, Penny wrote: > Before I turn to the true shipping, let me comment on Susanne's > comment: > << much, > that when the "real" characters (JKR's) are different, the > readers somehow feel betrayed.>>>>> > Actually, I don't think that *has* happened so very much as yet, > because there's been no new canon to challenge fanfic assumptions. I > think it almost certainly *will* happen though. The true explosion in > HP fanfic occurred after GoF. I truly think it's already happened and FF has changed some people's view on characters in retrospect. I read many different HP forums, and have seen it mentioned multiple times, that fan's perceptions of characters have been influenced by the stories they read and that they now like/dislike a character they didn't, before. The long wait has given readers time to get immersed in all sorts of alternate universes, some of them almost as long as the canon books . I guess it can be hard to switch gears and get back to the "real" thing, without being somehow influenced by alternate characterizations, especially if someone really has their heart set on a certain relationship that may not happen in canon that way. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 03:31:54 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 03:31:54 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; [FF fragment] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48765 Laura:"But they don't seem to enjoy their respective roles with each other in this plot. A point is often made of Hermione and Ron bickering, but what about Harry and Hermione? Hermione, with her intellect and logic, is constantly telling Harry to be more careful. She bosses him around, lectures him on his actions, and rolls her eyes incredulously when he (or Ron, for that matter) can't see the "obvious" solution to the problem." I can only say I think you make it sound worse than it is. If she is in fact Harry's "coach," for want of a better word, than it's her role to chivvy him, and he's bound not to like it a lot of the time; but I don't think that affects their long-term feelings for each other. I know couples that relate in ways not unlike that that are successful. But my original premise was *not* Why Harry and Hermione are Right Together, but Why Ron Isn't Right for Hermione in the Long Term. They all might end up with completely diffferent people. THOSE are the relationships that are difficult. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have just been off saving the world for seven years (if they live that long by the end), an incredibly intense experience, and someone else is going to get into that circle? How could anybody else understand them? ======================================== Cho waved Hermione over to her table. "Thanks for coming, Hermione, I know I just called... let's order." Hermione took a sip and looked at Cho. "How are you and Harry doing in your new house? You know, you've been in it a month and I haven't seen it?" "Oh, fine, but it's so much work, you know how it is, you've got to come see..." Cho didn't finish. "Hermione, can you come see Harry? I'm worried." "what is it?" "Yesterday I couldn't find him for an hour, and then I went in the garage, and there he was...sitting on the floor by the boxes. I thought he was unpacking, but he was just sitting there looking at this picture. The Four Champions, you know? And he didn't hear me until I shook him, and he just looked at me like I wasn't there, his face, I can't forget it, and you know what he said? 'The only one. See? I'm the only one. They're all dead but me. You lost Cedric, and you know why? Because we were friends. How many more?' " Hermione looked down at her plate. "Do the dreams still wake him up?" Cho stared. "How do you know that? I thought you and he never..." Hermione looked up. "I still have mine." From divaclv at aol.com Tue Dec 24 04:16:59 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312 ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:16:59 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Suzanne Chiles" wrote: > > I think that CoS is very relevant, mostly because we learn so much about > Voldemort as a schoolboy, and from knowing his history, we can then begin to > understand some of the factors that made him the way he is. We certainly > needed the information about Voldemort to understand the climax scene of > GoF, and I would suspect that knowing what we learn about him in CoS will be > a helpful guide to understanding his actions in the remaining three books. We also learn about the connections--both literal and figurative-- between Voldemort and Harry. The fact that Harry got a piece of Voldemort's power due to the backfired AK, and that Parseltongue is a part of that, seems almost certain to play a part in future installments. It's also a nice time to examine the parallels between the two--both orphans (Voldemort in the de facto sense, but very much without parents all the same), both with unpleasant experiences in the Muggle world, etc. The notion that the demarcation between good and evil isn't all that clear starts to crop up in CoS, although it's fleshed out more fully in the next two books. ~Christi From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 24 04:52:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:52:41 -0800 Subject: H/H by default? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; [FF fragment] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55340307341.20021223205241@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48767 Hi, Monday, December 23, 2002, 7:31:54 PM, Jim wrote: > Harry, Ron, and > Hermione have just been off saving the world for seven years (if they > live that long by the end), an incredibly intense experience, and > someone else is going to get into that circle? How could anybody else > understand them? So..., that means Harry's only chance for future romance is Hermione? And the same for Ron? You don't think *any* of the other students at Hogwarts might have an inkling about what's going on with Harry? It's well known that Voldemort is after Harry, and while they may not hear every little detail about all the happenings, they still have at least an idea. It wouldn't be *that* hard for someone else to understand, imo, when the details are filled in. A relationship for Harry and Hermione by default (because no other female could possibly understand Harry, and Hermione can't possibly help him like she does, and *not* like Harry that way) doesn't sound like something that would be very fulfilling. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Dec 24 05:21:34 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:21:34 -0000 Subject: Driver's ED In-Reply-To: <000e01c2aade$ff256e60$5b362850@ukf974444> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48768 Cassie asked: > Anyway, I was just thinking: Where do wizards learn how to drive? Do ones who > want to drive take classes with muggles or are their other wizards who teach > it? It just seems like an odd thing for them to learn since they can just fly > or apparrate, but Arthur Weasley, Fred, George, and Ron and those Ministry > wizards can drive a car. Also, why can Mr. Weasley do something as > complicated as drive a car, but he needs Harry to help him figure out how to > use a 'feletone'? As someone else mentioned, in both these instances the cars in question were enchanted in some form. One probably wouldn't have to know much to drive them. Also, being able to drive a single time (with or without magical autos) doesn't necessarily mean one really knows how to drive. Michelle also commented: >In the UK, there is no driver's Ed in school. We have to either >learn with someone we know or pay a driving instructor to teach us. Same deal in many parts of the US. Some high schools offer driver's ed., but it's not universal. I had to pay $100 to take a course. -Corinth From catlady at wicca.net Tue Dec 24 05:27:32 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:27:32 -0000 Subject: SecretKeeper/pets/Voldie's wand/shipping the Trio Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48769 Lindsay wrote: << personally if Harry has a secret keeper I think it's Snape. >> I can do no better than to quote Steve bboy_mn: "Just one problem, Harry's wearabouts is not a secret. ... So, there couldn't be a secret keeper because it's obviously wasn't kept secret." Snuffles wrote: << But if Harry were to keep Sirius as a pet, the rules at Hogwarts would have to change., i.e. eash student is permitted to bring with him if he wishes a cat, a rat, an owl, or a toad. >> Actually the letter in PS says a cat or an owl or a toad, so Percy and Ron's rat is already a pet who is not mentioned in the letter. Lee Jordan's tarantula isn't on the list either, altho' some people have suggested that he didn't keep it as a pet after that first Hogwarts Express trip. I've always felt that a student having a dog the size of a cat would not get any aggravation about it from the authorities, but that isn't quite the same thing as keeping a dog the size of a horse in a shared dorm room. Is there a barn for pet horses? << If there are the quoted 1000 students at Hogwarts, and each has some kind of animal... where do all of these animals go to the bathroom? (snip) Surely, Filch is not responsible for cleaning up after all of them. He gets angry if there is mud on the floor of the enterance hall. >> Before GoF, I assumed that students have to clean up their own pet's litter box, but since GoF, I have assumed that the House Elves do it. rinceceol wrote: << how *DID* Voldemort get his wand back? Where has it been hiding these 13 years? >> In my non-canonical opinion, Voldemort took Peter with him to the Potter house. When Voldemort was vaporized, Peter picked up his fallen wand. Peter hid Voldie's wand somewhere, and picked it up again on his way to Albania. I believe that any wand an Animagus is holding, as well as his clothes and wallet and everything else, transform into skin and fur of his animal form and transform back when he transforms back, so travelling to Albania in rat form wouldn't rule out taking the wand with him. Jim Ferer wrote: << What I can't imagine is any of them getting a mate outside the Trio. After you've spent your adolescence in a maelstrom worthy of a Norse saga, how can an ordinary person compete? >> It seems there are a number of non-ordinary people in the wizarding world. I don't want to pair off any one of the Trio with Dumbledore, but there may be other defeaters of major Dark Wizards hanging around, who are less old and/or less annoying beatific than Dumbledore. I don't want to pair off any one of the Trio with Snape, but he's in the same maelstrom as they are. When I'm a Harry/Ron and Hermione/Ginny shipper, or when I'm a Harry/Cho, Hermione/Viktor, Ron/OC shipper, I figure that Ginny, or Cho, Viktor and the OC, will have to get close enough to the Trio to have a major supporting role against V at least by the middle of book 6. Thus being in the same maelstrom and bearing the same scars. Any argument that any one of the Trio marries (permanently) someone who was an ally in the struggle against Voldemort is a direct contradiction of the faction that *insists* that Our Heroes will not marry (permanently) a person they knew during their school years, just because real people in the Muggle world don't do that. From mmm_poptarts at misery.net Tue Dec 24 05:06:38 2002 From: mmm_poptarts at misery.net (silly_mr_wiggles ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:06:38 -0000 Subject: lupin and his transformations... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48770 Ok, this is my first post here so be kind please! In PoA Lupin gets the potion from Snape to keep from transforming. Lupin is in human form when he recives the potion from Snape. As we know from the Shreaking Shack scene, Lupin didn't transform until he was outside in the moonlight. This being confirmed by JKR herself. Now my question is this, why, if Lupin didnt transform until night fall in the moonlight, did Snape have to teach his classes for him on days of the full moon? In chapter 9 of PoA Snape stands in for Lupin as DADA teacher, this is explained by Lupin in chapter 17, after Hermione tells Harry and Ron that Lupin is a werewolf - "Lupin stopped dead. Then, with an obvious effort, he turned to Hermoine and said, 'How long have you known?' 'Ages,' Hermione wispered. 'Since I did Professor Snape's essay...' 'He'll be delighted,' said Lupin coolly. 'He assigned that essay hoping someone would realize what my symptoms meant....Did you check the lunar chart and relize that i was always ill at the full moon? Or did you relize that the boggart changed into the moon when it saw me?' 'Both,' Hermione said quietly." (PoA p346 USA Hardcover) Why was lupin healty and able to be there in the shack, on a night of the full moon without having taking his potion, but yet unable to be in his classes teaching earlier in the year? -cracker (who thinks she did pretty good for her first post!) p.s. - I am really sorry if this has been brought up before, i didn't see any previous posts about it when i searched. Also, in case you are wondering my name is Jessica and I am 14 years old. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 07:03:10 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 07:03:10 -0000 Subject: lupin and his transformations... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "silly_mr_wiggles " wrote: > Ok, this is my first post here so be kind please! > > In PoA Lupin gets the potion from Snape to keep from transforming. > Lupin is in human form when he recives the potion from Snape. > As we know from the Shrieking Shack scene, Lupin didn't transform > until he was outside in the moonlight. This being confirmed by > JKR herself. > > Now my question is this, why, if Lupin didnt transform until night > fall in the moonlight, ... ... ... > > ...edited... > > -cracker (who thinks she did pretty good for her first post!) bboy_mn comments: Well, you have a good point and yes, it's been brought up before, but don't let that discourage you. There is very little that hasn't been brought up before. We can call this one of two thing; 1.)a mistake, 2.) artistic license. It is a valid inconsistency, so all we can do is create possible explanations to account for it. One person recently pointed out that for an astronomical perspective, despite the fact that we may see what appears to be a full moon, the moon is officially full at a very specific time, and stay officially full for a very specific period of time. Our eye see a full moon for a much greater period that the official time. So the cloud moved aside just as the moon reached it's official fullness, forcing Lupin to transform. That's one man theory. "One Man", if you are still around, maybe you can explain it better. My personal theory is based a lot less on fact than on my desperate attempt to resolve the inconsistency. Over the course of the year, during which Lupin was consistently taking the Wolfsbane potion, he was getting better. His window of illness covered less time as the treatment progressed, and the symptoms were less severe. Near the end, as he described, he simply transformed into a regular wolf and curled up by the fire and waited it out. So, while I'm sure he was feeling poorly, and was looking forward to taking his potion and locking himself in his room, when he saw what was happening on the map, those thoughts wee pushed from his mind by the sight of a long dead friend on the Hogwarts ground and a friend who was now an escaped notorious criminal. It was further pushed from his mind when he saw that Harry and his friends were in trouble. He rushed to there aid with no though to what night it was. He ran on pure adrenalin (sorry about the spelling) and his residual Wolfsbane potion. But when the moon reached it peak of fullness, and the moon light struck him, no amount of adrenalin or residual Wolfsbane could hold back the transformation. He got luck for a while, but eventually his luck ran out. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 24 05:48:39 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:48:39 EST Subject: Question about Hagrid and Sirius's meeting at Potter's Message-ID: <30.33f20a76.2b394f37@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48772 I was rereading PS tonight and it occurred to me that Hagrid says after dropping off Harry with Dumbledore that he was going to return Siriu's motorcycle... Although, Later, in PoA, I believe, Hagrid explains how he and Sirius had argued that night over Hagrid taking Harry to Dumbledore and how Sirius finally agreed giving Hargid the bewitched Motorcycle, saying something to the notion of "Take it, I won't be needing it." So, did Hargid return to look for Sirius? Or is this just a small mistake in the story line? -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Tue Dec 24 08:04:13 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 03:04:13 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] lupin and his transformations... Message-ID: <198.12cf5641.2b396efd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48773 In a message dated 24/12/2002 00:46:18 Eastern Standard Time, mmm_poptarts at misery.net writes: > why, if Lupin didnt transform until night > fall in the moonlight, did Snape have to teach his classes for him on > days of the full moon? Hiya Jessica, first, I still stand by my transformation post # 48240 as to my own personal theory about the transformations, i.e. why the occur when they do... But IMHO as to why Snape taught the class is that although after time as bboy_mn at yahoo.com theorises Lupin's transformations become less painful and torturous on his body, in the beginning his transformations are still quite painful... Look at Lupin's descriptions of his time in the Shrieking Shack as a Hogwart's student... tghey are painful and without a huiman to bite, he bites himself... Although, I think he eludes to the fact that his transformations became easier on him as a result of his time with Marauders, he probably still had a bad bit of it to go during his adult transformations... I just wish I knew, other than Lupin's statement in PoA that he was a poor potions maker, why he hadn't been taking Wolfsbane since its conception... if I were a werewolf and had to deal with the transformations every 28 days, I would want the potion the minute it was discovered.... much like I feel about Midol... hmm.. maybe lupin is a really a woman like me. lol -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dangermousehq at hotmail.com Tue Dec 24 04:28:47 2002 From: dangermousehq at hotmail.com (dangermousehq at hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:28:47 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS irrelevant? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48774 Not to mention the Ginny Fiasco--something that I want to see come up later. I've been talking to my Art History teacher (major fan of the series), and we think that that will definately be important. Rowling has the opportunity to use her experiences with Tom to deepen her character significantly. Outside of mental scarring, maybe she has become a Parseltongue ... CoS is certainly not irrelevant. -DM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andie at knownet.net Tue Dec 24 04:17:28 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (grindieloe ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:17:28 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48775 Suzanne, I agree with you that CoS is VERY relevant to future understanding. It gives us the history to Voldie as well as letting us in on the true dark nature of the Malfoy's. JK doesn't seem to write anything without a hint to a deeper meaning/understanding/plot to come in the future. grindieloe From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 11:24:39 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:24:39 -0000 Subject: H/H by default? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; In-Reply-To: <55340307341.20021223205241@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48776 Susanne:"So..., that means Harry's only chance for future romance is Hermione? And the same for Ron?" Harry most of all; he's already been in the graveyard and watched a friend die. But it's more than that. The shared experience of all three of the Trio is so incredibly tight and intense at such a young age that yes, I foresee difficulties for all of them dealing with "normal" life. Harry is the one that might end up as the man alone. He might fear forming intimate relationships for fear of more loss. One of my pet beliefs is that Harry's going to pay a high price. Susanne:" You don't think *any* of the other students at Hogwarts might have an inkling about what's going on with Harry?" Oh, sure. I used Cho for my ficlet (had to pick somebody), but she's suffered loss in this war already. It's the tight knit Trio that would be the problem for the outside mate, not just the pain of loss Harry will have. And, of course, I'm not saying that members of the Trio will find it *impossible* to form intimate relationships outside the group; but it will be a problem. Happy Holidays, Jim Ferer From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Tue Dec 24 12:16:35 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (Lee) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:16:35 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c2ab46$4db51a50$eafe6251@6obvijj5cbv4mbn> No: HPFGUIDX 48777 CoS is our first example of the power of the humble House-Elf. They employ their own brand of wandless magic (the hover charm), a form of Apparition that works within the supposedly Apparition-barred Hogwarts (and which also manages to get around the protections at Privet Drive, because I refuse to believe that Death Eaters haven't tried to apparate in and kill Harry ;) ). They also have some fairly powerful offensive magic, as seen when Dobby blasts Lucius Malfoy away from Harry at the end of the book. I expect this will become more important, either in the form of Dobby saving Harry from a Death Eater attack, or the formation of a House-Elf army to help combat the Dementors that Voldemort is almost certain to get hold of. Then we have the first use of Parseltongue (barring the Zoo in PS/SS), the pulling of Godric's Sword from the Sorting Hat (*cough* Excalibur *cough*), the scar link being explained, the Chamber of Secrets (could be used as a safe haven for the trio, if they need somewhere to work in peace), Harry's Slytherin traits, our first look at Tom Riddle, Ginny's horrific experience, further evidence of a long-running fued between the Weasleys and the Malfoys, the question of what Hagrid was really doing in Knockturn Alley, the Hand of Glory (my personal favourite object for inclusion in the rest of the series), the first look at Dumbledore's office, Polyjuice Potion (which was a HUGE pointer for GoF, even though we all mimssed it), Harry and Ron now know where the Slytherin common room is, all the people that were Petrified (after-effects?) and last - but not least - our first look at Fawkes. There's a lot of little things in there that could become very important later on. Much more than I could find in PoA, for example. -LD --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002 From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 24 13:06:31 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:06:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: LV & Priori Message-ID: <54.587d4b4.2b39b5d7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48778 In a message dated 12/23/02 9:17:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, rinceceol at netzero.net writes: > This begs the question...how *DID* Voldemort get his wand back? Where has > it been hiding these 13 years? > > And when he was "killed," separated from his body, whatever, at Godric's > Hollow, he would have had to have dropped his wand...so why wasn't it > incinerated in the ensuing fire, or taken into custody and/or destroyed by > Aurors? Hmm, indeed. I wonder...Crouch? If the Ministry confiscated the wand, Crouch Sr., have known where it was stashed. Then when LV and Wormtail show up at his door, they force him [while Imperio'd] to retrieve it from the Ministry equivalent of an evidence locker. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 24 13:16:42 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:16:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) Message-ID: <1a1.defdac9.2b39b83a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48779 In a message dated 12/23/02 9:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, alicit at aol.com writes: > Maybe Sirius left the map out, on insult mode, to bait Severs. While he was > > being insulted by the map, Severs might have asked something about how > Lupin's always sneaking off. Then, Map!Padfoot said something like, "Well, > > if you *really* want to know, just prod the knot of the whomping willow, > that'll do it for you!" Not a hole, just a variant. Snape sees one of the four consulting the Map, making sure the coast is clear before joining Moony!Lupin. Since it was Sirius who seems most to blame for the Prank, let's say it was Sirius. Snape pulls a Malfoy, and sets Filch on Sirius. Sirius can't hide it, but does have time to set it to insult mode. Filch confiscates it, and Sirius, furious, tells Snape how to get past the whomping willow, then storms back to the common room and tells Peter and James what happened and what he did. James realizes the potential for disaster and charges off to warn/rescue Snape. Then, after Sirius has seemingly betrayed the Potters, Filch moves the Map from Sirius' file to the file where the Twins found it in their first year [I looked up when the found it]. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 13:29:09 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:29:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: lupin and his transformations... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021224132909.9704.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48780 It was asked: If Lupin only transforms at night, why did Snape need to teach his classes during the days of the full moon? And I answer: It has always been my impression that being a werewolf in the WW is not like in the movies. You are not walking around and then pop! you are a werewolf, and once the nights over it is back to normal. Obviously Lupin is affected by his condition ALL the time. Harry notices how Lupin looks deathly ill sometimes and then he begins to look better. (apprently according to lunar cycles). My impression was that by the time of the actual full moon when he was transforming at night, Lupin was so ill, weak, and tired, that even in his human form he was not fit to teach classes. If i didn't KNOW Lupin was a werewolf, I would probably think he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Just my impressions ANGELA bboy_mn comments: Well, you have a good point and yes, it's been brought up before, but don't let that discourage you. There is very little that hasn't been brought up before. We can call this one of two thing; 1.)a mistake, 2.) artistic license. It is a valid inconsistency, so all we can do is create possible explanations to account for it. One person recently pointed out that for an astronomical perspective, despite the fact that we may see what appears to be a full moon, the moon is officially full at a very specific time, and stay officially full for a very specific period of time. Our eye see a full moon for a much greater period that the official time. So the cloud moved aside just as the moon reached it's official fullness, forcing Lupin to transform. That's one man theory. "One Man", if you are still around, maybe you can explain it better. My personal theory is based a lot less on fact than on my desperate attempt to resolve the inconsistency. Over the course of the year, during which Lupin was consistently taking the Wolfsbane potion, he was getting better. His window of illness covered less time as the treatment progressed, and the symptoms were less severe. Near the end, as he described, he simply transformed into a regular wolf and curled up by the fire and waited it out. So, while I'm sure he was feeling poorly, and was looking forward to taking his potion and locking himself in his room, when he saw what was happening on the map, those thoughts wee pushed from his mind by the sight of a long dead friend on the Hogwarts ground and a friend who was now an escaped notorious criminal. It was further pushed from his mind when he saw that Harry and his friends were in trouble. He rushed to there aid with no though to what night it was. He ran on pure adrenalin (sorry about the spelling) and his residual Wolfsbane potion. But when the moon reached it peak of fullness, and the moon light struck him, no amount of adrenalin or residual Wolfsbane could hold back the transformation. He got luck for a while, but eventually his luck ran out. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn ________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! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Tue Dec 24 13:29:17 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:29:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: LV & Priori Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48781 Rincecelo asked wand...so why wasn't it > incinerated in the ensuing fire, or taken into custody and/or destroyed by > Aurors? I'm not sure that we can say that it's canon that a fire consumed the house. Blown up doesn't always mean a fire is involved - things can blow apart but without combustion enough to start a destructive fire. In book 1, Hagrid says the house was destroyed, Iirc, Petunia was the first person who said "blown up" and that was a reference to Lily and James, not the house, and she never saw either, anyway. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From heidit at netbox.com Tue Dec 24 13:37:18 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:37:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Hagrid and Sirius's meeting at Potter's Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48782 I'm not sure what you mean by mistake (aka flint) here. If he did return to look for Sirius to return the cycle, that would've been after he spoke to Sirius the first time. In other words, the sections you posted about are totally consistent in this manner: 1. Hagrid goes to Godric's Hollow, gets Harry out, speaks to Sirius, borrows motorcycle. 2. Hagrid, with Harry, flies to Dumbledore. 3. Hagrid flies cycle back to look for Sirius. 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: srsiriusblack at aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:48:39 To:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about Hagrid and Sirius's meeting at Potter's Real-To: srsiriusblack at aol.com I was rereading PS tonight and it occurred to me that Hagrid says after dropping off Harry with Dumbledore that he was going to return Siriu's motorcycle... Although, Later, in PoA, I believe, Hagrid explains how he and Sirius had argued that night over Hagrid taking Harry to Dumbledore and how Sirius finally agreed giving Hargid the bewitched Motorcycle, saying something to the notion of "Take it, I won't be needing it." So, did Hargid return to look for Sirius? Or is this just a small mistake in the story line? -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [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, 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 24 15:11:10 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:11:10 -0000 Subject: Small FF reference; SHIP: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: <039701c2aaf8$b28e5980$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48783 I said: <<>>>> Penny: I don't know why you assume that Hermione would only be interested in him because of his fame and power. I think it's the reverse: he would be interested in *her* because she could hold her own with his fame/power. If he didn't have that fame or power or was somehow "stained" as it were, I don't think it would make a bit of difference to Hermione. I think *she* quite clearly respects her friend Harry, not the Boy Who Lived. A big "me too" to what Jim Ferer wrote on this topic. I agree with every word that Jim Ferer has written about why the R/H ship just doesn't work, IMO. I don't think Ron's ego and self-esteem can handle a relationship with Hermione over the short-term. Now whether he will develop sufficient self-esteem to let her blossom and thrive in her own right ....... maybe. But, evaluating 14-yr old Ron from GoF, I sure wouldn't lay odds that a R/H relationship will make it into their 6th year. << What I see here is a great concern with the balance of power in relationships. Personally, I haven't seen much of this from Harry's end of things at all. I think if he was concerned about that, he'd have made friends with Draco instead of Ron. Harry, in canon, doesn't think of his fame and power as part of who he is. I see that disconnect as central to his character, and the reason why he's wary of people who want to associate with "famous Harry Potter." He's not worried about putting people in his shadow at all, IMO. I do think, as Ebony seems to, that the balance of power is an issue for Hermione. It isn't Harry's power itself that would attract her, it's the balance of power between them. She wouldn't need to fear that her drive and assertiveness would overpower Harry, and I think this could make *him* attractive to her. *But* I think Harry would sense this and find it off-putting. In fact, I think this is the reason he hasn't developed romantic feelings for her in canon so far. All his experience has been to dissociate love and power, to think of them as opposites. He has not, at least since the age of one, had any experience of being loved by someone who is powerful, and he has a great deal of experience with being mistreated by the powerful. I think Harry is very glad to have Hermione on his side as a friend, and ally, and coach. I think he likes, admires and respects her tremendously. But I think he will always feel, perhaps without ever being able to articulate it, that there is something she needs that he can't give her. I think Hermione wants and deserves to be loved for the very powerful individual that she is. Right now, I don't think Harry can manage that. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 24 15:20:03 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:20:03 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; [FF fragment] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48784 Jim said >>THOSE are the relationships that are difficult. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have just been off saving the world for seven years (if theylive that long by the end), an incredibly intense experience, andsomeone else is going to get into that circle? How could anybody elseunderstand them? << This seems to me a case of imaginary sequel contamination. Harry has been peeled off from the Trio for every one of his harrowing encounters with the Dark Side. Maybe that will change in subsequent books, but so far Ron and Hermione know no more about what happened in the Graveyard et al than Harry chose to tell them. *They weren't there.* Harry doesn't have nightmares about being chased by giant chessmen or about the Dementors or the basilisk. He has nightmares about *Voldemort*. If anyone shares that experience it's Ginny and Cho. They are the ones who know what it is to lose a part of themselves to the Dark Lord. I think it's very significant that Harry sees Ginny and Cho weeping uncontrollably, just as Harry himself wishes he could. Hermione, for all her valiant courage, has not yet faced that ordeal. Pippin From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 16:42:29 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:42:29 -0000 Subject: Small FF reference; SHIP: H/H vs R/H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48785 Pippin:"What I see here is a great concern with the balance of power in relationships. Personally, I haven't seen much of this from Harry's end of things at all. I think if he was concerned about that, he'd have made friends with Draco instead of Ron." There isn't any concern on Harry's side at all, we agree completely on that. The issue here, and even more with Ron and Hermione, is Ron's feelings. Can Ron's self-worth and ego stand being in the shadow of these two exceptional young wizards, that's the issue. We've already seen signs of strain in the Ron/Harry friendship; I say it is likely to be magnified in a Ron/Hermione romance. If the fame/power/glamor/whatever imbalance was an issue to Hermione, she wouldn't be who she is; she'd be as haughty as Fleur. I could foresee Hermione becoming impatient with Ron's insecurity. Pippin:"I do think, as Ebony seems to, that the balance of power is an issue for Hermione. It isn't Harry's power itself that would attract her, it's the balance of power between them." I don't believe the 'balance of power' attracts Hermione; insecurity would repel her. Hermione has insecurities of her own; she worries that all her efforts will be enough, that her cleverness won't be enough, and her response to it is to work harder and harder. The vulnereabilities in others that irritate us the most are the ones we have ourselves. If Ron was comfortable with who he was, it wouldn't be an issue. Pippin:"In fact, I think this [the balance of power issue] is the reason he [Harry] hasn't developed romantic feelings for her [Hermione] in canon so far. All his experience has been to dissociate love and power, to think of them as opposites." Harry doesn't have a power issue problem, IMO. If Harry had a negative issue with the powerful, he would have trouble with authority figures like Dumbledore or McGonagall. He doesn't. His rule-breaking is not the same thing as antagonism towards authority. Why isn't Harry attracted to Hermione? If we knew that, we'd set up a counseling center together and clean up. Their relationship was established early on, pre-hormones, and they're comfortable in it; IOW, Harry hasn't noticed Hermione's a girl ("Well spotted!") That could change; maybe it will, maybe it won't. If it did happen, I would imagine that as the most enduring kind of relationship possible. The day could come that Harry realizes he's brought all his vulnerabilities and needs to her, so why not take another step? From cymru1ca at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 24 16:55:13 2002 From: cymru1ca at yahoo.ca (Erica ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:55:13 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; [FF fragment] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999 " wrote: > Jim said > > >>THOSE are the relationships that are difficult. Harry, Ron, and > Hermione have just been off saving the world for seven years (if > theylive that long by the end), an incredibly intense experience, > andsomeone else is going to get into that circle? How could > anybody elseunderstand them? << > Pippin said > This seems to me a case of imaginary sequel contamination. > Harry has been peeled off from the Trio for every one of his > harrowing encounters with the Dark Side. Maybe that will change > in subsequent books, but so far Ron and Hermione know no > more about what happened in the Graveyard et al than Harry > chose to tell them. *They weren't there. > Harry doesn't have nightmares about being chased by giant > chessmen or about the Dementors or the basilisk. He has > nightmares about *Voldemort*. If anyone shares that > experience it's Ginny and Cho. They are the ones who know > what it is to lose a part of themselves to the Dark Lord. I think > it's very significant that Harry sees Ginny and Cho weeping > uncontrollably, just as Harry himself wishes he could. > > Hermione, for all her valiant courage, has not yet faced that > ordeal. > I think that Ron and Hermione are the only ones that know what Harry is and has been going through. They seem to be the only one of his 'peers' that Harry confides in, that see, first hand, what Harry has been going through. They are the only one who've stood by his side, both figuritively and physically (didn't Ron face his worst fear following Harry into the forbidden forest?, didn't Hermione suck it up (in terms of her discomfort in flying) when they saved Sirius and Buckbeak?). Harry shares a bond with Ron and Hermione (as JKR mentions after the Troll incident in PS) that he doesn't have with anyone else. Ginny and Cho are hardly the only ones to face hardship due to Voldemort (directly or indirectly). Neville (effectively), Susan Bones and others lost family members due to the 'fight with Voldemort', Sirius, Snape, Dumbledore, etc. have all experienced hardships and yet carry on. Harry has many people that he can look to for that 'shared' experience. Both Hermione and Ron have (intentially) put themselves in harms way for Harry. They both could have potentially come face to face with Voldemort (Hermione in PS and Ron in CoS), the fact that they didn't doesn't negate the fact that they were more than willing do it. After his experience in GoF it's Ron and Hermione's company Harry sought out, it's in their company that he finds solace. Erica (who mostly lurks) From melclaros at yahoo.com Tue Dec 24 17:47:24 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:47:24 -0000 Subject: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) In-Reply-To: <129.1e68e171.2b3924e6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48787 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > melopomene's paraphrasing > > "Lupin telling Harry that the mapmakers would "have > wanted to *lure you out*...*they'd have found it amusing*"." > > OOh, I think this theory just got a little bit better. A bandwagon! Well this is panning out very well, isn't it? No jumping at all! Let's do away with the paraphrasing though and move up a step to canon. Snape knows exactly where the map came from. PoA British ed. Snape calls Lupin to his office on page 212 and shows him the map. "Well?" said Snape. Lupin continued to stare at the map. Harry had the impression that he was doing some very quick thinking. *"Well?"* said Snape again "Where do you imagine Potter got such a thing?" Lupin looked up and by the merest half-glance ub Harry's direction, warned him not to interrupt. "I imagine Harry got it from a joke-shop--" "Indeed?" said Snape. His jaw had gone rigid with anger. "You think a joke-shop could supply him with such a thing? You don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the manufacturers?*" (again, the italics are Rowlings.) Me interrupting the gentlemen: I can't read this any other way. Snape knows exactly what the map is and where it came from. So then Lupin pockets the map and is NOT happy with Harry and Ron on the way out of Snape's office: "I don't want to hear any explanations," said Lupin shortly. He glanced around the empty Enterance Hall and lowered his voice. "I happen to know that this map was confiscated by Mr. Filch many years ago. Yes, I know it's a map. " he said as Harry and Ron looked amazed. "I don't want to know how it fell into your possession. I am, however *astounded* that you didn't hand it in." NOW FOR THE GOOD PART: "Why did Snape think I'd got it from the manufacturers?" "Because...' Lupin hesitated, "because the mapmakers would have wanted to lure you out of the school. They'd think it extremely entertaining." "Do you *know* them?" said Harry, impressed. "We've met,".... Now that's quite a jump, don't you think? Snape "knew" he'd got the map from the manufacturers because he knew the function of the map was to lure it's reader out of the school? The prank thickens. Melpomene tending her bunny hutch From divaclv at aol.com Tue Dec 24 17:58:27 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312 ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:58:27 -0000 Subject: Question about Hagrid and Sirius's meeting at Potter's In-Reply-To: <30.33f20a76.2b394f37@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > Although, Later, in PoA, I believe, Hagrid explains how he and Sirius had > argued that night over Hagrid taking Harry to Dumbledore and how Sirius > finally agreed giving Hargid the bewitched Motorcycle, saying something to > the notion of "Take it, I won't be needing it." > > So, did Hargid return to look for Sirius? Or is this just a small mistake in > the story line? My guess is, the implications of the line didn't register with Hagrid. He has at this time no reason to believe Sirius is guilty of anything (assuming the Secret-Keeper business isn't widely known at this point), and he certainly doesn't know what's *really* happening. He probably initially read Sirius' statement as "I don't need the bike right now" as opposed to "I won't need it ever again." ~Christi From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 24 18:01:44 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:01:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; [FF fragment] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44387657209.20021224100144@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48789 Hi, Tuesday, December 24, 2002, 8:55:13 AM, Erica wrote: > Ginny and Cho are hardly the only ones to face hardship due to > Voldemort (directly or indirectly). Uh, did you forget CoS, concerning Ginny?? I'm not even sure we've heard the last of that. Ginny and her experiences seemed to fade into the background a bit to quickly. Maybe we'll hear a bit more about them in the future. And having your boyfriend killed certainly counts a a "hardship" in my book. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 24 18:06:24 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:06:24 -0800 Subject: Apologies!Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Why Ron is wrong for Hermione; [FF fragment] In-Reply-To: <44387657209.20021224100144@earthlink.net> References: <44387657209.20021224100144@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <196387937570.20021224100624@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 48790 Hi Erica, I apologize for having misread your post! Of course, I noticed it only after I had already sent the post! Susanne Tuesday, December 24, 2002, 10:01:44 AM, Susanne wrote: > Hi, > Tuesday, December 24, 2002, 8:55:13 AM, Erica wrote: >> Ginny and Cho are hardly the only ones to face hardship due to >> Voldemort (directly or indirectly). > Uh, did you forget CoS, concerning Ginny?? > I'm not even sure we've heard the last of that. > Ginny and her experiences seemed to fade into the background > a bit to quickly. > Maybe we'll hear a bit more about them in the future. > And having your boyfriend killed certainly counts a a > "hardship" in my book. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 24 18:25:56 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:25:56 EST Subject: Ginny & CoS Message-ID: <23.297d699b.2b3a00b4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48791 In a message dated 12/24/02 1:05:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > Uh, did you forget CoS, concerning Ginny?? > > I'm not even sure we've heard the last of that.Ginny and her experiences seemed to fade into the background > a bit to quickly. > Maybe we'll hear a bit more about them in the future. Hm, maybe we did hear a little about them in PoA. After Harry, Ginny is the most shaken when the Dementor enters the compartment. I suspect she was reliving her experiences during CoS. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Tue Dec 24 19:05:07 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 14:05:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) Message-ID: <17c.141d1d76.2b3a09e3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48792 Cheryl: > Not a hole, just a variant. Snape sees one of the four consulting the > Map, making sure the coast is clear before joining Moony!Lupin. Since it > was > Sirius who seems most to blame for the Prank, let's say it was Sirius. > Snape > pulls a Malfoy, and sets Filch on Sirius. Sirius can't hide it, but does > have > time to set it to insult mode. Filch confiscates it, and Sirius, furious, > tells Snape how to get past the whomping willow, then storms back to the > common room and tells Peter and James what happened and what he did. James > realizes the potential for disaster and charges off to warn/rescue Snape. Me: Excellent variant, and i do think it a very credible one. In either case, it makes a whole lot of sense for the map to have played such an integral part in the Prank, especially if it is, in fact, *evil*. Melpomene: "A bandwagon!? Well this is panning out very well, isn't it? No jumping at all! Let's do away with the paraphrasing though and move up a step to canon. " Scheherazade hides a sheepish grin: Thank you, i was hoping to get some actual quotes, but my copy of PoA is lost in the abyss of our storage room. ^_^ Melpomene: "Snape knows exactly where the map came from. PoA British ed. Snape calls Lupin to his office on page 212 and shows him the map. "Well?" said Snape. Lupin continued to stare at the map. Harry had the impression that he was doing some very quick thinking. *"Well?"* said Snape again "Where do you imagine Potter got such a thing?" Lupin looked up and by the merest half-glance ub Harry's direction, warned him not to interrupt. "I imagine Harry got it from a joke-shop--" "Indeed?" said Snape. His jaw had gone rigid with anger. "You think a joke-shop could supply him with such a thing? You don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the manufacturers?*" (again, the italics are Rowlings.) Me interrupting the gentlemen: I can't read this any other way. Snape knows exactly what the map is and where it came from." Me: Yes, i think that this is very important, especially to our theory. I also think this *strongly* implies that Snape does know that the map belongs to Lupin, or that he knew it belonged to the other three and, therefore, probably to lupin. Melpomene again: "So then Lupin pockets the map and is NOT happy with Harry and Ron on the way out of Snape's office: "I don't want to hear any explanations," said Lupin shortly. He glanced around the empty Enterance Hall and lowered his voice. "I happen to know that this map was confiscated by Mr. Filch many years ago. Yes, I know it's a map. " he said as Harry and Ron looked amazed. "I don't want to know how it fell into your possession. I am, however *astounded* that you didn't hand it in." " Me!: Which is also a hint that the map might have been implicated in the prank. I still really like the idea that Map!padfoot told about the knot, and that the Map Is Mightily Evil (MIME) That would be why Lupin would be "astounded" that they didn't turn it in, because he now knows that it is a dark object, even though the marauders themselves did not mean it to be. (more on the map to follow in another related post!) Mel again: "NOW FOR THE GOOD PART: "Why did Snape think I'd got it from the manufacturers?" "Because...' Lupin hesitated, "because the mapmakers would have wanted to lure you out of the school. They'd think it extremely entertaining." "Do you *know* them?" said Harry, impressed. "We've met,".... Now that's quite a jump, don't you think? Snape "knew" he'd got the map from the manufacturers because he knew the function of the map was to lure it's reader out of the school? The prank thickens." Yes, and, if Snape knew the map was used by Sirius to lure Snape into certain death, then it wouldn't be that much of a leap for him to think that Sirius (escaped murderer) was using it to lure Harry into certain death. Maybe Snape's "You don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the manufacturers?*" could have been more likely an accusation of Sirius then Lupin? In the shreiking shack (again, i am going on remembered cannon here, so if someone could help me out?) Severus says something about knowing lupin was in league with Sirius. This would also explain why Snape was snooping around Lupin's office while going to give him the Wolfsbane potion. Everything's falling into place... -Scheherazade, who has finally devised an acronym! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 24 17:54:45 2002 From: louisekeithly2002 at hotmail.com (louise_keithly ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:54:45 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ron & Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48793 I am 3/4 of the way thru book 4, and its obvious 2 me that Ron and Hermione will get together in book 5 and maybe even stay together! Its just a matter of Hermione waiting for Ron to grow up a bit (emotionally). Louise From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Dec 24 19:28:51 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:28:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10738362764.20021224112851@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48794 I think the whole Diary thing is going to come back to haunt Lucius Malfoy... I don't think Voldy is going to pleased to find out his "slippery friend" wasted time trying to bring Tom Riddle back. Surely the last thing Voldy wants is another version of himself running around. -- Dave From alicit at aol.com Tue Dec 24 20:01:25 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:01:25 EST Subject: MIME (from: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map)) Message-ID: <40.29340d03.2b3a1715@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48795 "Me!: Which is also a hint that the map might have been implicated in the prank. I still really like the idea that Map!padfoot told about the knot, and that the Map Is Mightily Evil (MIME) That would be why Lupin would be "astounded" that they didn't turn it in, because he now knows that it is a dark object, even though the marauders themselves did not mean it to be. (more on the map to follow in another related post!)" Me replying to me: WOOT! I have an acronym. YO. *clears throat* Cannon for the Map Is Mightily Evil; 1)CoS, P 417 (the last chapter): "*Ginny!*" said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught you *anything?* What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself *if you can't see where it keeps its brain.*" " 2)PoA, p.192, chapter 10: "a drawer in one of his filing cabinets marked *Confiscated and Highly Dangerous.*" 3)PoA, p.192, chapter 10: "then words began to blossom across the top, great, curly green words, that proclaimed:" 4) PoA, p. 194 chapter 10: "But even as he stood there, flooded with excitement, something Harry had once heard Mr. Weasley say came floating out of his memory. *Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain.* This map was one of those dangerous magical objects Mr. Weasley had been warning against....*Aids for Magical Mischief-Makers*... but then, Harry reasoned, he only wanted to use it to get into Hogsmeade, it wasn't as though he wanted to steal anything or attack anyone... and Fred and George had been using it for years without anything horrible happening...." 5)PoA, p.288 chapter 14: ""*Well?*" said snape again. "this parchment is plainly full of Dark Magic. This is supposed to be your area of expertise, Lupin. Where do you imagine Potter got such a thing?" ... "Full of Dark Magic?" he repeated mildly. "Do you really think so, Severus? It looks to me as though it is merely a peice of parchment that insults anybody who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous? I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop --"" 6)PoA, p.288 chapter 14: "...don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the manufacturers?*" ... "You mean, by Mr. Wormtail or one of these people?"" 7)PoA, p.289 chapter 14: "I am, however, *astounded* that you didn't hand it in." 8)PoA, p.289 chapter 14: "...these mapmakers would have wanted to lure you out of school. They's think it extremely entertaining."" 9) Wormtail/Peter Pettigrew is in the service of Voldemort, as of GoF. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 seem to imply that a map that can think for itself should be immediately considered dangerous and a dark object. 5-8 show that Lupin probably thinks that it does have a bit of dark magic in it. (for this assumption I am not taking what Lupin says at face value, but rather his actions, which I snipped from my cannon passages, unfortunately...) And that Snape also thinks it is evil. 3, 6, and 9 are a streach. If the Map Is Mightily Evil, it would make sense if Pettigrew, who is currently evil, had the idea for it/ obtained the materials for it. I give you this scenario, Pettigrew comes back from summer holiday with an ancient parchment/enchanted ink (especially the ink, for all those out there who think that Green=Evil! *g*). He says that he found it in Knockturn alley and that it has a tracking and mapping spell built into it, and all they have to do is find the complete layout of Hogwarts. This explains many issues with the map, mostly: How did four schoolchildren make something so powerful? Also, if Pettigrew had access to Knockturn alley or dark relics, this could explain why he defected to the dark side. This would also explain why Lupin made his comment in 6, because Wormtail is neither the first name (Lupin is) nor the last name (which people are the most likely to recall. Go AP Psych.) If this is significant, it means one of two things. One, that Lupin was purposefully skipping himself because he thinks that Snape would know Moony meant him OR two, that Lupin considers the map Wormtail's, because he was the one that brought the ink/parchment. A Related topic: Cheryl: "Snape pulls a Malfoy, and sets Filch on Sirius. Sirius can't hide it, but does have time to set it to insult mode." Just a note on the "insult mode": I don't think it is something that is set... but that it is more a triggered effect. If anyone tries to turn the map 'on' without the right words, like snape does, it will insult them. So maybe, when snape came upon the map, he saw sirius studying it, wiping it, and then tries to start it? So if he heard "mischeif managed" he might have tried something like "Ready to start mischeif" which caused MWPP to insult him. -Scheherazade, the MIME [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From metal_tiara at hotmail.com Tue Dec 24 21:58:04 2002 From: metal_tiara at hotmail.com (sophineclaire ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:58:04 -0000 Subject: MIME (from: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map)) In-Reply-To: <40.29340d03.2b3a1715@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > "Me!: Which is also a hint that the map might have been implicated in the > prank. I still really like the idea that Map!padfoot told about the knot, > and that the Map Is Mightily Evil (MIME) > That would be why Lupin would be "astounded" that they didn't turn it in, > because he now knows that it is a dark object, even though the marauders > themselves did not mean it to be. (more on the map to follow in another > related post!)" > > Me replying to me: > WOOT! I have an acronym. YO. > > 5)PoA, p.288 chapter 14: > ""*Well?*" said snape again. "this parchment is plainly full of Dark Magic. > This is supposed to be your area of expertise, Lupin. Where do you imagine > Potter got such a thing?" > > ... > > "Full of Dark Magic?" he repeated mildly. "Do you really think so, Severus? > It looks to me as though it is merely a peice of parchment that insults > anybody who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous? I imagine Harry > got it from a joke shop --"" > > 6)PoA, p.288 chapter 14: > "...don't think it more likely that he got it *directly from the > manufacturers?*" > > ... > > "You mean, by Mr. Wormtail or one of these people?"" > > 9) Wormtail/Peter Pettigrew is in the service of Voldemort, as of GoF. > > > 3, 6, and 9 are a streach. If the Map Is Mightily Evil, it would make sense > if Pettigrew, who is currently evil, had the idea for it/ obtained the > materials for it. I give you this scenario, Pettigrew comes back from summer > holiday with an ancient parchment/enchanted ink (especially the ink, for all > those out there who think that Green=Evil! *g*). He says that he found it in > Knockturn alley and that it has a tracking and mapping spell built into it, > and all they have to do is find the complete layout of Hogwarts. This > explains many issues with the map, mostly: How did four schoolchildren make > something so powerful? Also, if Pettigrew had access to Knockturn alley or > dark relics, this could explain why he defected to the dark side. This would > also explain why Lupin made his comment in 6, because Wormtail is neither the > first name (Lupin is) nor the last name (which people are the most likely to > recall. Go AP Psych.) If this is significant, it means one of two things. > One, that Lupin was purposefully skipping himself because he thinks that > Snape would know Moony meant him OR two, that Lupin considers the map > Wormtail's, because he was the one that brought the ink/parchment. > > It's always bothered me that no one in the novel has addressed the fact that A) Wormtail helped create the map and B) he is a servent of Voldemort and C)He knows the secret passageways which means that D) He can show the other deatheaters where to go to break into the castle. On top of that Polyjuice!Crouch had his hands on it,and since he was in contact with Voldemort, probably got some help from Pettigrew as to the Map's operation. I can see him spending hours checking out this entrance and that entrance, with Snape spying on him in some dark dungeon corner. Though I think it was irresponsible for Lupin to return the Map to Harry, I guess in the long run the good it can do in helping the light side will override the harm it has done in the past. But in the aftermath of GOF, Lupin and Black will have a lot of explaining to do and hopefully there will be some changes to castle itself to offset the chance to a sneak attack. Just a side note* I think Pettigrew is quite a competent and sneaky fellow (Rats are actually intelligent animals). I would not be surprised if he was a Junior Deatheater while still in Hogwarts. I can also see a certain Tom Riddle having a hand in creating such a map, given his preference for secret lairs and intelligent objects with hidden brains. Pettigrew can pretend that he is forgetfull and that he doesn't remember all the secret entrances. One of the Maurauders could suggest making a map, Possibilities are dicussed, and Voldemort is privately consulted of this. In fact, dear Tom may have provided some of the literature needed to help those foolish 16 year olds and gave them a few pointers as to the escape routes that he knew of (deftly leaving out the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets for his later use) -Sophineclaire (Happy "Athiest-Children-Get-Presents" Day) From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Dec 24 22:21:36 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:21:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Driver's ED Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48797 In a message dated 12/23/02 8:08:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, srsiriusblack at aol.com writes: > Very true. Americans, as I learned coming here from the UK, also get to > drive > earlier... which would make the question valid for US people, as ( having > taught in the states, I learned) driver's ed is part of the curriculum. I really doubt that most wizards *want* to drive. There's all the traffic and the insurance (it would be a pain for wizards to get a checking account just for insurance). Brooms and Apparation and Floo Powder are most likely alot safer than cars. But I'm a little confused as to what everyone means by "part of the curriculum". At my school, it was offered, but it was in the summer and it isn't required. But that's OT, so ignore me. ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ Happy Christmas to everyone! Also, Happy (late) Hanukah! And Happy Kwanzaa! Um...oh! Happy Winter Solstice! I think that's all of them...if I forgot any, forgive me! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 24 22:35:26 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit ) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 22:35:26 -0000 Subject: House Symbols (was: CoS irrelevant?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48798 This post really has nothing to do with the relevence of CoS but something struck me as odd when I was reading the thread: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erisedstraeh2002 " wrote: >In legend, the griffin was believed > to be the "adversary of serpent and basilisks, both of which were > seen as embodiments of satanic demons" (from the What's in a Name > website ? paraphrased from the Dictionary of Symbolism). I believe > this to be a parallel to Gryffindor's Fawkes and Slytherin's > basilisk, and perhaps a clue to a possible good-against-evil fight > between Gryffindor and Slytherin 1,000 years ago. Why is the symbol of Gryffindor a lion and not a griffen? The lion is used to symbolise bravery I think but there is quite a bit of speculation that Dumbledores office is the same office that Godric Gryffindor used, still containing his pet phenoix. On that point why isn't the symbol a pheonix either. On another house related question why is the symbol of *raven*claw an eagal? Theresnothingtoit From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 07:23:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 07:23:14 -0000 Subject: lupin and his transformations... In-Reply-To: <20021224132909.9704.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48799 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Evans wrote: > > > It was (Originally) asked: > > If Lupin only transforms at night, why did Snape need to teach his classes during the days of the full moon? > > And I answer: > > It has always been my impression that being a werewolf in the WW is not like in the movies. Obviously Lupin is affected by his condition ALL the time. ... ... ... My impression was that by the time of the actual full moon when he was transforming at night, Lupin was so ill, weak, and tired, that even in his human form he was not fit to teach classes. > > If i didn't KNOW Lupin was a werewolf, I would probably think > he had chronic fatigue syndrome. > > Just my impressions > > ANGELA > bboy_mn adds new comments: For the most part, I agree with what you said, but I'm a little confused about your attitude. That's one of the big failings of internet communication; you have no visual clues to go by. So, for the moment, let's forget about attitude and focus on Lupin. Like I said, I agree with most of what you said. Lupin is affected by his problem all the time, and in the beginning, he is miserably sick day and night near the time of his transformation. But the story tells us that he was improving; although any improvement certainly going to be bounded by tight limits. We see him very sick and missing class in the beginning, and we see him out and about the night of the Shrieking Shack. However, we don't know how bad he was actually feeling, since we see everything through Harry's eyes and mind. He could have been feeling horrible and, to some extent, it was masked by the anger, fear, and adreanalin of the situation. Also, we have a documented account of a tranformation that same night. As far as transforming only at night (back to the original question), I would like to point out that, for those who are very observant, you will have noticed that the moon is sometimes visible in the late afternoon in broad daylight. Although, I couldn't swear to the fact that it's ever full at this time. Back to attitude with me treading very cautiously. If your comment about Chronic Fatigue Syndrom was intended to be some light hearted wit and/or humor, then I can appreciated as well as the next guy. But if it was intended to be some biting sarcasm... well, having Chronic Fatigue Syndrom... let's just say, that would hurt. I chose to think the best, and chalk up my uncertainty to the failings of internet communication. Best to all. bboy_mn > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > bboy_mn comments: (My Original Statement) > > Well, you have a good point and yes, it's been brought up before, > but don't let that discourage you. > >...edited... > He rushed to there aid with no thought to what night it was. He ran > on pure adrenalin and his residual Wolfsbane potion. But when the > moon reached it peak of fullness, and the moon light struck him, no > amount of adrenalin or residual Wolfsbane could hold back the > transformation. He got luck for a while, but eventually his luck > ran out. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_mn From gandharvika at hotmail.com Wed Dec 25 08:58:26 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 08:58:26 +0000 Subject: (FILK) Polyjuice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48800 Polyjuice (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of the Christmas carol, _Silver Bells_) I hope that all of you out there in HP4G-land are having a wonderful Christmas! Or at least have a nice day :)> Harry and Ron: Here at Hogwarts, our school Hogwarts Celebrating in style The Great Hall's Decorated for Christmas With mistletoe Enchanted snow Having fun all the while But later on we'll be breaking Some rules Polyjuice, Polyjuice We'll change into Crabbe and Goyle He'll confess, won't have to quess If Malfoy is Slytherin's heir Double attack, raised a panic These attacks have to end We suspect that it Has to be Malfoy Myrtle's toliet, we're dublicates Of Malfoy's two best friends We have only one hour To see... Polyjuice, Polyjuice We'll change into Crabbe and Goyle He'll confess, won't have to quess If Malfoy is Slytherin's heir -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf From bobafett at harbornet.com Wed Dec 25 04:46:51 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 20:46:51 -0800 Subject: Peeves References: Message-ID: <000701c2abd0$a6c571a0$72edaed8@smccarley> No: HPFGUIDX 48801 in book 1 at the bottom of page 115 of the american hard back version it states and i quote "My dear friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a ghost" Peeves isnt a ghost so what is he? A poltergeist isn't a poltergeist a ghost that wants its body back or something like that? regardless my thoughts about it are why is it Filch is the only one he listens too? The books say he will barely listen to dumbledore. Whats his tie to filch and why is he here what will his role be later on? BoBaFeTT From noir_l at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 05:34:13 2002 From: noir_l at yahoo.com (lindsay L) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:34:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021225053413.7050.qmail@web11407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48802 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) " wrote: I can do no better than to quote Steve bboy_mn: "Just one problem, Harry's wearabouts is not a secret. ... So, there couldn't be a secret keeper because it's obviously wasn't kept secret." Everybody knows he is at Hogwarts. But does everybody know about where he spends his summers at the Dursley's? Some people know but there is no evidence that the wizarding world knows about the Dursleys and that that is the place where Harry stays for the summer. Voldemort could easily kill him there, so he would need a secret keeper to hide him while he was there. Besides, a secret keeper just hides the appearance of a person--they become invisible to the person seeking them out unless the secret keeper gives them away. In the book it said that Voldemort could be looking right in the window and never see him. He is safe at Hogwarts but the Dursley house needs some protection too especially when Harry is there. "Lindsay L" From nj13guy at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 04:49:00 2002 From: nj13guy at yahoo.com (Potter Hermione forever ) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 04:49:00 -0000 Subject: Meaning of OotP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48803 Hi, This is my first post here. I had posted a similar message at fictionalley park forum here I was thinking about how the titles of Potter Books always lead to something nasty (i.e. Phil. stone leading to Voldemort trying to steal it, Chamber of Secret leading to Duel between Potter & Young Voldemort, Azkaban which had horrors in store for Sirius & Hagrid, GoF which lead Diggory & Potter to Voldemort leading to Diggory's death & Voldy's Resurrection.) So I guess maybe OotP will also lead/point to something nasty!! Let us put ourselves in Voldemort' shoes( er... claws,bare feet whatever) just after the events in GoF where Potter has escaped with Diggory's body. I would be very angry/astonished at Harry being able to escape me once again. I would be even more astonished at HArry being able to dodge the supposedly invincible 'Avadra Kedavra' curse! The Death Eaters would be like, 'Hey! Harry Potter was able to escape the Dark Lord's wrath once again ! What is happening? Maybe Harry Potter has something special which even the Dark Lord is not able to fathom/fight !' This would be making them very nervous as to whether they made the right choice in returning to their master. Voldemort would inevitable try to allay their fears by brushing off their fears. Maybe then he would realize the fact of his & harry's wand sharing the same core, the same feather from Fawkes the Phoenix!. ( I am guessing he may come to realize this himself OR from Rita Skeeter who was listening to Dumbledore's conversation in teh climax of GoF as a bug.) This Rita Skeeter theory is discussed by me in a seperate thread here : 'Rita Skeeter knows everything' So, Voldemort will try to acquire Fawkes the Phoenix to try & find a solution to this problem. He knows he will be faced with the same problem in his future duels with Harry Potter. He will not be able to kill Harry unless he finds a solution to his wand sharing the same core as that of Harry's wand! So, I guess maybe he will be able to either (a) steal the Phoenix. Or (b)maybe in the process of trying to steal the Phoenix, The Phoenix may disappear in order to avoid being captured by Voldemort. The Phoenix may then leave a message/command/Order telling them about his whereabouts/hiding place. In either of the scenarios Dumbledore /Harry will try to rescue the Phoenix. That way Harry may go to a completely different magical place ( as JKR said ) and readers may witness a nasty death of Phoenix (as JKR said). The Phoenix may decide to sacrifice himself so that he may not get into the hands of Voldemort. That would be similar to Dumbledore destroying the Philosopher's Stone! Waddaya think about this theory? Does it make sense OR Do you guys/girls feel I have been having too much Butter Beer ? Potter Granger forever From srsiriusblack at aol.com Wed Dec 25 09:45:27 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 04:45:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house Message-ID: <1bd.190043d7.2b3ad837@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48804 In a message dated 25/12/2002 04:40:19 Eastern Standard Time, noir_l at yahoo.com writes: > "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) " > wrote: > I can do no better than to quote Steve bboy_mn: "Just one problem, > Harry's wearabouts is not a secret. ... So, there couldn't be a > secret keeper because it's obviously wasn't kept secret." > > > Everybody knows he is at Hogwarts. But does everybody know about where he > spends his summers at the Dursley's? Some people know but there is no > evidence that the wizarding world knows about the Dursleys and that that is > the place where Harry stays for the summer. Voldemort could easily kill him > there, so he would need a secret keeper to hide him while he was there. > Besides, a secret keeper just hides the appearance of a person--they become > invisible to the person seeking them out unless the secret keeper gives > them away. In the book it said that Voldemort could be looking right in the > window and never see him. He is safe at Hogwarts but the Dursley house > needs some protection too especially when Harry is there. Some people HAD to know where he was. In PS/SS, Harry recalls "dtrange" people waving, bowing, embracing etc him throughout his memory. Obviously these people knew who he was--- and he was always out with the Dursleys on these occasions.... so, one owuld think that it was somewhat a common knowledge that wizards and witches knew where to find Harry-- or at least knew what he looked like as he aged...... which brings up another question- How did random wizards and witches identify Harry unless someone in the WW was providing information? I think that the ancient magic protecting Harry at the Dursleys did not prevent people from knowing where he was... but simply preventing harm to him-- look at how Harry evades Dudley's gang in PS/SS by magically ending up on the roof after diving behind trashbins.... SOmething strange was happening, yes... but I still think that many people knew where Harry was. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at aol.com Wed Dec 25 12:00:16 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 07:00:16 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: LV & Priori Message-ID: <7d.32c7250a.2b3af7d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48805 In a message dated 12/24/02 8:09:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, Lynx412 at aol.com writes: > Hmm, indeed. I wonder...Crouch? If the Ministry confiscated the wand, > Crouch, Sr., have known where it was stashed. Then when LV and Wormtail > show up at his door, they force him [while Imperio'd] to retrieve it from > the Ministry equivalent of an evidence locker. Oops, my bad. He *must* have had the wand in Albania, because of Bertha Jorkins. Sigh. Some other possibilities: Lucius Malfoy? Scabbers might have heard Ron & Harry talking about Draco and the secret room under the floor in CoS and retrieved the wand to better his position with Voldemort when he found him. Malfoy does make that comment about how Harry's parents died. It could be a general crack or he might have been there and grabbed the wand. Quirrel? If the Ministry had confiscated LV's wand, Quirrrel might have known where it was and stolen it prior to the attempt on Gringotts in PS/SS. LV then knew where it was hidden and possessed something capable of grabbing it on his way out of Hogwarts at the end of PS/SS. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From GinWeasRox at aol.com Wed Dec 25 14:50:35 2002 From: GinWeasRox at aol.com (Brooks ) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:50:35 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48806 Several people have pointed out aspects of CoS that fit into the series. I would like to approach Laura's question from a different direction. Perhaps the reason it seems irrelevant is because the Harry Potter series did not truly begin until PoA. PS/SS is a stand- alone book. It had to be, because nobody knew if it would sell. It did sell, so a sequel was written. It was at that point that Bloomsbury Publishing realized how far this gold mine could be taken, and JKR sat down with the editors to develop an extended story line. I'm sure that she had ideas back at the beginning about how the story and the characterizations would develop, but she didn't complete all seven manuscripts before going out to find a publisher. If she *had* done that, we would not have this insufferably long wait for OotP. The exact same thing happened when New Line Cinemas released a ghost story called "A Nightmare on Elm Street". The second film simply doesn't fit in with the concept of a series. It is in 3-6 that we are given a well rounded description of the villain's life starting with details of his conception and the identity of his mother, and only in #6 do we learn that he had a wife and daughter. Events from CoS were worked into the series once it was decided that there was to be a series. I hope this helps to explain why CoS seems just slightly out of place. Brooks From what412name at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 15:48:01 2002 From: what412name at yahoo.com (what412name ) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 15:48:01 -0000 Subject: Muggle-borns/Magical abilities Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48807 Hi, this is my first post and I was curious about the following, as I could not find the answers in the FAQ or lexicon. Questions on muggle-born wizards/witches like Hermione: 1) How do they get Wizard money to buy their Hogwarts school supplies? 2) How do they get to Diagon Alley or Platform 9 &3/4 (1st year)? At the end of CoS, Dumbledore told Harry that when Voldemort gave Harry the scar he also passed some of his magical "gifts" to him. Does this mean that all wizards/witches have at least one magical "gift"? If so, what are their gifts (ie. Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, McGonagall, etc)? If the purpose of the wand is to focus magical abilities, then are their lessons at Hogwarts meant for them to learn how to focus their abilities? Since Hermione is very good at charms, does it mean that she is very good at focusing her abilities or that she's good at charms? Also, is the broomstick itself magical or the rider? In other words, can a muggle fly on a broomstick? ~ B.E.T.S ~ From Lynx412 at aol.com Wed Dec 25 17:24:30 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:24:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] MIME (from: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map)) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48808 In a message dated 12/24/02 3:44:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, alicit at aol.com writes: > Just a note on the "insult mode": I don't think it is something that is > set... but that it is more a triggered effect. If anyone tries to turn the > > map 'on' without the right words, like snape does, it will insult them. So > > maybe, when snape came upon the map, he saw sirius studying it, wiping it, > and then tries to start it? So if he heard "mischeif managed" he might > have > tried something like "Ready to start mischeif" which caused MWPP to insult > > him. Good point. Perhaps if the map was altered from another item, it *was* originally just a sheet of parchment designed to insult it's users. A joke substitute for a scroll of homework parchment. I can see it...misspell a wizard's name and the sheet insults you. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mb2910 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 25 17:45:13 2002 From: mb2910 at hotmail.com (Meira B) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 19:45:13 +0200 Subject: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48809 Snuffles: Some people HAD to know where he was. In PS/SS, Harry recalls "dtrange" people waving, bowing, embracing etc him throughout his memory. Obviously these people knew who he was--- and he was always out with the Dursleys on these occasions.... so, one owuld think that it was somewhat a common knowledge that wizards and witches knew where to find Harry-- or at least knew what he looked like as he aged...... Me: I don't think that those wizards that waved at him actually knew where to find him, I think that they just ran into him, or something. Snuffles: which brings up another question- How did random wizards and witches identify Harry unless someone in the WW was providing information? Me again: The whole WW knows who James and Lily Potter and their son - Harry Potter were. And having a lightning-shaped scar on the forehead doesn't exactly help matters of anonymity (sorry for the spelling). Besides, it's not too difficult to imagine Rita Skeeter snooping around trying to find out everything possible about to Boy Who Lived to make a front page article in the Daily Prophet. Snuffles: I think that the ancient magic protecting Harry at the Dursleys did not prevent people from knowing where he was... but simply preventing harm to him-- look at how Harry evades Dudley's gang in PS/SS by magically ending up on the roof after diving behind trashbins.... SOmething strange was happening, yes... but I still think that many people knew where Harry was. Me: I thought about the Fidelius charm that protects Harry, and many questions have been raised in this list about what happens in the muggle school that Harry went to prior to Hogwarts, how was he protected there. I think (and I hope I'm not pilagiarizing anyone's ideas, my apologies if I am) that the Fidelius is not around a *location* but around a *person*. I also think that the Fidelius charm protects Harry from those who intend to *harm* him, so making Harry invisible to a wizard that just wants to wave his hand at the Boy Who Lived and run back home and tell his wife and children: "Oh, by Merlin's Beard, I've seen Harry Potter today, and you know what?" (said wizard is all excited now, wife and children less so, apparently this wizard is a "Harry Potter" stalker who tries to figure out where Harry Potter will be next so he can go there and wave at him) Wife and children (sighing deeply, knowing what's coming next): "No, what?" Wizard: "I waved at him." (declaring this as if he has finally invented a self-spelling wand, all smiling and beaming at his loved one and his offspring) *wizard goes off to his room and collects a huge scrap-album where he collects everything that was ever printed about the Boy Who Lived* ummm, was getting slightly out-of-track there... Anyway, it would make much more sense if the Fidelius was around a person rather than a location, because then it would resolve all the logistical problems of having protection in one place, while having none in another place. OK, that's it from me (for now), Merry Christmas, Meira. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedjmf_3mf From jodel at aol.com Wed Dec 25 20:29:28 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 15:29:28 EST Subject: Peeves Message-ID: <126.1de8c0e2.2b3b6f28@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48810 BoBaFeTT asks; << isn't a poltergeist a ghost that wants its body back or something like that? >> We had a little discussion on this some time ago. Poltergeist activity has been documented for centuries, but the definition of just what a poltergeist is has changed with the ages. The most current explanation has taken the intuitive leap of postulating that a poltergiest is not the revenant of anything that was ever alive, but, instead, a manefestation of psychic energy into the physical plane brought about by disruption in its original "realm" due to the sort of trubulence which is generally associated with disturbed adolescents. Particularly adolescents with some degree of psychic ability. Given that Hogwarts has served as a repository for anywhere up to a thousand psychicly "active" adolescents at a time for most of a milenium, and subject to all of their distress, teenage angst, hormonal uproars, jealousies and what all, it is hardly unreasonable to expect the castle to have generated a poltergeist. If they ever exorcised Peeves, it would probably generate a replacement by the end of the next term. Granted, Nick is probably not up on current Muggle explanations for psychic phenonena, but as a "real" ghost, he would be in the position to know that Peeves isn't anything that ever had a soul. (And, it wasn't Filtch that Peeves listened to, it was the Bloody Baron. Filch is the one he torments, just because he can.) -JOdel From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 25 18:54:36 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:54:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle-borns/Magical abilities References: Message-ID: <3E09FEEC.52C97F13@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48811 "what412name " wrote: > > Hi, this is my first post and I was curious about the following, as I > could not find the answers in the FAQ or lexicon. > > Questions on muggle-born wizards/witches like Hermione: > 1) How do they get Wizard money to buy their Hogwarts school supplies? They exchange muggle money for wizard money at Gringotts > 2) How do they get to Diagon Alley or Platform 9 &3/4 (1st year)? Likely a rep from the school or some wizard is put in charge or asked to look for these students and help out. Harry had Hagrid to help him, after all. I'm sure Hermione had help as well in her first time after getting her 'letter'. > > At the end of CoS, Dumbledore told Harry that when Voldemort gave > Harry the scar he also passed some of his magical "gifts" to > him. > Does this mean that all wizards/witches have at least one > magical "gift"? If so, what are their gifts (ie. Harry, > Hermione, > Ron, Dumbledore, McGonagall, etc)? There's nothing to indicate that special gifts, like Parseltoungue, are common. Some wizards might have 'gifts' they inherited, but there's nothing to say all wizards each have some special 'gift'. > > If the purpose of the wand is to focus magical abilities, then are > their lessons at Hogwarts meant for them to learn how to focus their > abilities? Since Hermione is very good at charms, does it mean that > she is very good at focusing her abilities or that she's good at > charms? Like anything else, some kids will do better at some things then others. Some types of wands might make some types of magic easier, but with an over-achiever like Hermione, the type of wand would not matter much. She's so good at so many things. > > Also, is the broomstick itself magical or the rider? In other words, > can a muggle fly on a broomstick? > Its the broomstick that's magical. I think possibly a muggle could fly one, but would have to be taught how and might have problems getting the broomstick to obey them properly.. Some muggles might be able to ride well enough though, as like in horseback riding, there is always the chance someone might be a natural.. Hard to tell until Rowling puts a muggle on a broomstick and everyone assumes that whatever happens to that ONE muggle is a set-in-stone rule for ALL of them. ;) I for one think things are far more flexible then the books hint at, given the whole thing with flying cars (illegal) vs flying motorcycles (not illegal or Sirius didn't care about the laws anymore then Hagrid follows the laws about dangerous magical creatures). Still can't picture a 'family broom'. I think all the extra people would throw the ballence off and would rather have a nice, reliable carpet. How does one install a baby safty seat on a broom? Jazmyn From dom-blokey at supanet.com Wed Dec 25 19:17:00 2002 From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 19:17:00 -0000 Subject: Underage wizards and magic use Message-ID: <001001c2ac4a$40961450$94bf28d5@Blokey> No: HPFGUIDX 48812 I was wondering if anyone knew any more about the rules etc for the use of magic for non-graduates? If I'm reading it correctly (and forgive me for being unable to provide quotes to back myself up) 'underage wizards' (presumably those who have yet to graduate) are not permitted to use magic outside of school. Does this mean *all* magic? And also how strict are they on these rules? In COS, Harry is reprimanded by letter for using magic in the pudding incident. This letter comes to him even though it wasn't he who was the cause, so how do the MOM target individual underage wizards? Did they note that magic was used in the Dursley house and as the only wizard in the house, Harry must be responsible? If so, what would happen if, say Ron used magic in his house when his parents and older brothers were there? Would the MOM be able to ascertain that the magic was from Ron, or would there be the presumtion that it came from one of the qualified wizards (and witch)? Another note on this subject is that two other occasions stick out in my memory. Firstly, one the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS, Ron is trying to turn Scabbers yellow. Elsewhere in the series I believe it mentions that the students are still able to use magic while onboard the Hogwarts Express, but to me it gives the impression that Ron has perhaps tried the spell before (ie: when not on the train) and also, around the same time, Hermione arrives and says that she has only tried a few simple spells, but they've all worked fine for her. Secondly, during the build up to the quidditch world cup in GOF, there is an incident where a child uses his fathers wand to engorge a slug, and the mother gives the impression ('Havent' I told you not to play with your father's wand?' or words to the effect) that its not the first time. Do the parents of this child receive letters from the MOM about improper magic use, and has Hermione already got a stain on her magical record before the first day of term at Hogwarts?? I know I've possibly ambled on a bit more than I should have, but its one of the wee things thats been bugging me :) - Another BTW, and rather much on a tangent, is just a comment on rather coincidental timing. If I'm not mistaken, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle Seniors knew each other from their DE days, tho I'm not sure of any evidence that they were necessarily in the same year at Hogwarts etc. Is it not strange that they should all have sons effectively in the same academic year? And in the same year also as James and Lily Potter, and Arthur and Molly Weasley!! (although with the latter its not so much coincidence, as they seem to have made a sport out of it ;-) I'll ramble away again now, hope you've all had a good Christmas (or are still having one) Dom http://www.underagewizards.co.uk [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crazytortilla79 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 19:39:32 2002 From: crazytortilla79 at yahoo.com (Leah Battle) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 11:39:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: The gleam..an alternate theory? Message-ID: <20021225193932.87469.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48813 After lurking around for a while, I finally decided to post. I hope I have done o.k. The "gleam" in Dumbledore's eye at the end of GOF is Dumbledore's realization that Voldemort took Harry's blood. Why is this important? I think that by taking Harry's blood, Voldemort has made himself a blood relative of Harry's, and somehow unable to hurt Harry due to the protection that he has while in his relative's care. Whenever Voldemort is around Harry, this protection takes effect since he is under the care of a blood relative. Poke away at my theory! I am sorry if it has been discussed before, I didn't see it on any previous threads. Happy Holidays! crazytortilla __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From andie at knownet.net Wed Dec 25 20:07:09 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (grindieloe ) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:07:09 -0000 Subject: Peeves In-Reply-To: <000701c2abd0$a6c571a0$72edaed8@smccarley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48814 In response to BoBaFeTT regarding Peeves... Is it possible that Peeves doesn't have much of a connection with Filch at all? Filch doesn't like troublemakers, and well, Peeves is the ultimate troublemaker. Can that be the extent of their relationship? Since the only one Peeves is truly afraid of is the Bloody Baron, I have an idea that they might have some connection or another - whether it be in why Peeves is a poltergeist/ghost I don't know. Although I do know that JKR rarely puts anything (now matter how minor) in the book(s) for no good reason, I'm not sure if Peeves will eventually play a larger role. One reason I think that is (and I know we're not supposed to mention the movie here but it strengthens my idea), but the character of Peeves was not put into the movies thus far. Is he really just an extra? (Is there really such a thing as an extra in HP? lol) I'm not really sure, but it's a thought! grindieloe :) "BoBaFeTT" wrote: in book 1 at the bottom of page 115 of the american hard back version it states and i quote "My dear friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a ghost" Peeves isnt a ghost so what is he? A poltergeist isn't a poltergeist a ghost that wants its body back or something like that? regardless my thoughts about it are why is it Filch is the only one he listens too? The books say he will barely listen to dumbledore. Whats his tie to filch and why is he here what will his role be later on? BoBaFeTT From dom-blokey at supanet.com Wed Dec 25 20:39:09 2002 From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:39:09 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] exchanging money (was: Muggle-borns/Magical abilities) References: <3E09FEEC.52C97F13@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <003301c2ac55$c0296090$94bf28d5@Blokey> No: HPFGUIDX 48815 >From Jazmyn: > > They exchange muggle money for wizard money at Gringotts > Turning that on its head then... If Harry has a Gringotts vault full of galleons, sickles and knuts, why does he not use it more to his advantage in the muggle world? As late as POA (and possibly GOF, though I can't specifically recall), Harry is described as wearing Dudley's too-big clothes and inheriting Uncle Vernon's particularly nasty socks. Is there anything stopping him from exchanging some wizard money into stirling and going clothes shopping? Dom From heidit at netbox.com Wed Dec 25 22:13:06 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:13:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] exchanging money (was: Muggle-borns/Magical abilities) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48816 Nothing is really stopping him, per se, other than his concern that the Dursleys' horror of all things wizarding wouldn't extend to a huge pile of gold. In other words, perhaps he doesn't want to tip them off for fear they'd try to take it from him? 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: "Dom McDermott" Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:39:09 To: Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] exchanging money (was: Muggle-borns/Magical abilities) Real-To: "Dom McDermott" >From Jazmyn: > > They exchange muggle money for wizard money at Gringotts > Turning that on its head then... If Harry has a Gringotts vault full of galleons, sickles and knuts, why does he not use it more to his advantage in the muggle world? As late as POA (and possibly GOF, though I can't specifically recall), Harry is described as wearing Dudley's too-big clothes and inheriting Uncle Vernon's particularly nasty socks. Is there anything stopping him from exchanging some wizard money into stirling and going clothes shopping? Dom ________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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 25 22:07:39 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:07:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] exchanging money (was: Muggle-borns/Magical abilities) References: <3E09FEEC.52C97F13@pacificpuma.com> <003301c2ac55$c0296090$94bf28d5@Blokey> Message-ID: <3E0A2C2B.18FA0B66@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48817 Dom McDermott wrote: > > >From Jazmyn: > > > > They exchange muggle money for wizard money at Gringotts > > > > Turning that on its head then... > If Harry has a Gringotts vault full of galleons, sickles and knuts, > why does > he not use it more to his advantage in the muggle world? As late as > POA (and > possibly GOF, though I can't specifically recall), Harry is described > as > wearing Dudley's too-big clothes and inheriting Uncle Vernon's > particularly > nasty socks. Is there anything stopping him from exchanging some > wizard > money into stirling and going clothes shopping? > > Dom You really think the Dursley's would let Harry keep a dime if they knew he had it? Maybe he never realized he CAN trade wizard money for muggle money cause noone told him? Maybe the rate of exchange from wizard money to muggle money is TERRIBLE while muggle to wizard money is much better? Making wizard money almost worthless in the muggle world? Otherwise, why not sell the coins for their gold and silver metal value? i.e. IF 1 muggle pound = 20 galleons, but 1 galleon is only worth 1 pound? Harry would not be all THAT wealthy in the 'muggle world'. Set up that way, it would be near impossible for wizards to be rich in the muggle world unless they took muggle jobs and earned it themselves, but would allow muggle born wizards to have enough money to get what they need in the WW even if they were born poor. Jazmyn From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 22:11:11 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana Lucas) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:11:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lupin as a werewolf & Snape's potion In-Reply-To: <1040809194.2696.57815.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20021225221111.31326.qmail@web40207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48818 cracker wrote: >>In PoA Lupin gets the potion from Snape to keep from transforming. Lupin is in human form when he recives the potion from Snape. Why was lupin healty and able to be there in the shack, on a night of the full moon without having taking his potion, but yet unable to be in his classes teaching earlier in the year?<<< Snuffles wrote: >>>I just wish I knew, other than Lupin's statement in PoA that he was a poor potions maker, why he hadn't been taking Wolfsbane since its conception... if I were a werewolf and had to deal with the transformations every 28 days, I would want the potion the minute it was discovered....<<< Me: Actually, the potion Snape makes for Lupin does NOT prevent him from transforming into a wolf. I'll quote the book: "[Lupin talking to H/R/H & Black in the Shrieking Shack] I was a very small boy when I received the bite. My parents tried everything, but in thoses days there was no cure. The potion that Professor Snape has been making for me is a very recent discovery. It makes me safe, you see. As long as I take in the week preceding the full moon, I keep my mind when I transform....I am able to curl up in my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." [PoA, pg 352-353 USA hardback] "[Lupin talking to Harry] Professor Snape has very kindly concocted a potion for me. I have never been much of a potion-brewer and this one is particularly complex." [PoA, pg 156-7, USA hardback] Me: So, Snape provides the potion to Lupin so he will keep his human mind while in the form of a wolf. Wolf!Lupin can't teach his classes, even if his mind is still human. Wolves can't talk and write on the blackboard, after all. :) As to why Lupin hasn't been taking it since it's conception, maybe he has been, but it's so new that he's already been physically worn down by the effects of the disease, thus his worn appearance. This potion is a "very recent discovery" as stated by Lupin. Maybe the reason Dumbledore was able to offer the teaching job to Lupin was because of this new potion being available. I know Dumbledore wanted Lupin there because Sirius Black was now loose and, presumably, looking to go after Harry. I can see Dumbledore not minding Lupin is a werewolf, but definitely NOT wanting a man-eating werewolf running around inside the school. I can draw the conclusion that Dumbledore requested Snape to make the potion for Lupin. And I can also reason that a condition of Lupin's employment at Hogwarts was his continued use of this potion. Going over the appearance of Lupin as described in the book, I can see several reasons for his worn, bedraggled and tired appearance beyond him being physically worn-out from transforming into a werewolf. Dumbledore says that werewolves are not trusted in the wizarding world and that they can't find steady employment. Thus Lupin is poor, which explains his shabby, patched robes. And, due to lack of money, probably doesn't eat very healthily. Lupin has probably not been very happy since Black's escape from Azkaban. I mean he did think at that point that Black had murdered their friends Lily & James. He would be obsessed with finding Black and protecting Harry, which would make him neglect his appearance & grooming and probably cause him to lose sleep. And, more than likely, Lupin just doesn't care about personal primping. Diana __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 26 02:39:30 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:39:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin as a werewolf & Snape's potion Message-ID: <1a7.e4db476.2b3bc5e2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48819 In a message dated 25/12/2002 19:14:52 Eastern Standard Time, dianasdolls at yahoo.com writes: > Me: Actually, the potion Snape makes for Lupin does > NOT prevent him from transforming into a wolf. Right, I was making that staement in reference to my other posts on this topic. :) Lupin explains to HHR how painful the transformations had been when he was younger and up until the discovery of the wolfsbane potion- biting himself, clawing at himself, etc. So I was just curious as to why, other than his statement about being a poor potion maker, hadn't he been taking the potion since its discovery. I would think something that made life so much easier for Lupin would be something that he would have *learned* no matter how difficult the potion.... -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lindseyharrisst at hotmail.com Thu Dec 26 00:09:00 2002 From: lindseyharrisst at hotmail.com (lindseyharrisst ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 00:09:00 -0000 Subject: will we ever know.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48820 I feel certain that if Dumbledor was ever a head of any house it would have been Gryffindor. On the whole, it seems that the house heads have been presented by Rowling as being true to the virtues of their house. I know there is no logical reason for this, in that it seems to be Dumbldor (or whoever the headmaster was at the time) who makes appointements to the role of head of house, as he makes other staff appointments. It is not the sorting hat. I can't imagine that Dumbledor would have been appointed head of Slytherin in diffiance of convention. I think Dumbledor's relationship with Snape if fatherly and I think that is because he was the one, because he was the highest authority, who could help. Nevertheless, it must have been terrifying for Snape to have to admit something like that because he could have simply been turned over to the dementors. That created a sort of reliance that is really the basis for their relationship (thought hat's not to say they don't admire or like each other). Snapesangel From mb1984 at prodigy.net Thu Dec 26 03:05:11 2002 From: mb1984 at prodigy.net (MB1984) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:05:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin as a werewolf & Snape's potion In-Reply-To: <1a7.e4db476.2b3bc5e2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48821 -----Original Message----- From: srsiriusblack at aol.com [mailto:srsiriusblack at aol.com] I would think something that made life so much easier for Lupin would be something that he would have *learned* no matter how difficult the potion.... I've always thought that perhaps the potion is not only extremely difficult to make, but requires numerous rare and expensive ingredients - things Lupin (perpetually unemployed) couldn't afford. Millefiori From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Dec 26 05:21:08 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:21:08 -0000 Subject: Fidelius (WAS Re: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48822 Meira wrote: > I think (and I > hope I'm not pilagiarizing anyone's ideas, my apologies if I am) >that the > Fidelius is not around a *location* but around a *person*. > > I also think that the Fidelius charm protects Harry from those who > intend to > *harm* him... > Anyway, it would make much more sense if the Fidelius was around a > person > rather than a location, because then it would resolve all the >logistical > problems of having protection in one place, while having none in >another > place. Me: It is actually never stated that the Fidelius Charm conceals the whereabouts of a person at all. Professor Flitwick describes it in PoA (The Marauder's Map, pg. 205 US hardcover) as follows: "'An immensely complex spell,' he said squeakily, 'involving the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find- unless, of course, the Secret Keeper chooses to divulge it. As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lilly and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!'" Note that he says *the information* is impossible to find, not a person. Note the change in tenses: the first two sentences refer to the Fidelius Charm in general; the last one referred to its specific use with Lily and James. The charm basically takes information out of the realm of public knowledge and makes it impossible to access. In the case of Lily and James, the secret information happens to be their location. In the absence of the charm, a person could look into their window, see Lilly and James, and *poof! suddenly know their location (not a hard connection to make, right?). But with Fidelius in play, that final conclusion, however obvious it might seem, is no longer possible. So could Fidelius really be used to protect Harry at the Dursleys? What would the secret information be? As others have mentioned, it certainly isn't his identity; too many people recognize him. I doubt it would be his location. If it were, wouldn't that mean that no one could ever find him? From Flitwick's description, the charm seems to keep the information from absolutely everyone except the secret keeper. But hundreds of people know Harry's location when he's at school, and many more know where the Dursleys live (whether they have ever been there or not). Fred, George, Ron, and Mr.Weasely have both been to that house and seen Harry in it. So the secret isn't Harry's identity or location. I can't seem to attribute Harry's protection at the Dursleys to the Fidelius Charm. Although perhaps the charm is protecting something else about Harry... -Corinth, wishing everyone happy holidays! From dangermousehq at hotmail.com Thu Dec 26 05:34:12 2002 From: dangermousehq at hotmail.com (dangermousehq at hotmail.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:34:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: will we ever know.... References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48823 The problem with saying "it seems that the house heads have been presented by Rowling as being true to the virtues of their house" is that we know more or less nothing about the characters of... well, most of the teachers. I can see Dumbledore as being head of Griffindor, but the only thing we know about, say, Prof. Sprout is that she's fair with points! Just my two knuts, DM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 06:05:47 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 06:05:47 -0000 Subject: The gleam..an alternate theory? In-Reply-To: <20021225193932.87469.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48824 crazytortilla wrote: > The "gleam" in Dumbledore's eye at the end of GOF is > Dumbledore's realization that Voldemort took Harry's > blood. Why is this important? I think that by taking > Harry's blood, Voldemort has made himself a blood > relative of Harry's, and somehow unable to hurt Harry > due to the protection that he has while in his > relative's care. Whenever Voldemort is around Harry, > this protection takes effect since he is under the > care of a blood relative. After reading your post, it reminded me of a passage in GoF that made me think about Dumbledore's gleam again. Here's the passage: "[Voldemort talking to the Death Eaters & Harry in the graveyard] There was no hope of stealing the Sorcerer's Stone anymore, for I knew that Dumbledore would have seen to it that it was destroyed. But I was willing to embrace MORTAL LIFE [emphasis mine] again, before chasing immortality. I set my sights lower...I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." So, Voldemort, at the end of GoF is human and mortal again at the same strength he was before. No wonder Harry beats him again! :D But, back to the gleam in Dumbledore's eye when Harry tells him about Voldemort believing that using Harry's blood to resurrect himself would give him the same protection that Harry had from his mother's love. And that Voldemort could touch him now without pain [see Voldemort!Quirrell's fate]. What if Voldemort has made a grave calculation about Harry's blood protecting him as well and Dumbledore knows this? I surmise that Harry's mother's love has nothing to do with Harry's blood, but with Harry's soul, which Voldemort didn't get a piece of. Perhaps Voldemort doesn't realize that he's just as unprotected as before? It will be fun when Voldemort finds out about his misconception! :D Another thought on this topic is what Dumbledore said at the end of SS/PS. Here's the quote I want to reference: "[Dumbledore talking to Harry] 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 it's own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign...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. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." What if Voldemort drew the wrong conclusion from Quirrell's encounter with Harry? What if the specific combination of Quirrell and Voldemort couldn't touch Harry, but Voldemort alone could have? Sure, Voldemort was ripped from his body by his curse against Baby! Harry backfiring, but Voldemort never tried to physically touch Harry until he was residing inside Quirrell. And, the sixteen-year- old Voldemort in CoS never physically touched Harry in the Chamber of Secrets, either. We don't know for a fact that Voldemort *couldn't* touch Harry physically at any time. Harry has undoubtedly been protected in many ways while living with the Dursleys, but Voldemort never even tried to physically lay a finger on Harry, even a non-malevolent touch. Until Voldemort was living on the back of Quirrell's head and Quirrell was trying to strangle Harry at Voldemort's command, then Voldemort has never actually touched Harry in any way. We knew Quirrell by himself could touch Harry because he shook his hand in the Leaky Cauldron. That was before Voldemort "punished" Quirrell by taking up residence on the back of his head, of course. In addition, it is entirely possible, IMHO, that Voldemort's taking Harry's blood as part of himself, has gained some of Harry's humanity, compassion and nobility. What if, for complete lack of a better analogy, Harry's blood acts like a virus inside Voldemort and 'weakens' him by making doubts, love, remorse or even glimmers of compassion break through his evil personality? For a wanton murderer who kills without remorse or thought, even the tiniest stab of doubt or compassion would be a major hindrance. Dumbledore has yet to reveal to Harry [and by extension, us] why Voldemort so wanted to kill him even when Harry was a baby. Maybe, if Harry as the Heir of Gryffindor theory is true, Voldemort having blood from the heir of Gryffindor inside his veins is the key to his downfall? If I was Dumbledore, the thought of Voldemort drawing grossly incorrect conclusions about Harry's blood making him stronger, when it will be his downfall, would make me do some serious twinkling myself. :D Diana From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 06:18:32 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 06:18:32 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a werewolf & Snape's potion In-Reply-To: <1a7.e4db476.2b3bc5e2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48825 Snuffles wrote: >>So I was just curious as to why, other than his [Lupin's] statement about being a poor > potion maker, hadn't he been taking the potion since its discovery. > I would think something that made life so much easier for Lupin would be > something that he would have *learned* no matter how difficult the potion....<< Millefiori wrote: > I've always thought that perhaps the potion is not only extremely difficult > to make, but requires numerous rare and expensive ingredients - things Lupin > (perpetually unemployed) couldn't afford.<<< Me: Good idea, Millefiori. I could see a potion that powerful being very complex and expensive to make. Also, if werewolves are as shunned in the Wizarding World as indicated in the books, then I doubt Lupin could have easily requested someone make if for him without giving himself away. I do wonder, like Snuffles, if Lupin wouldn't have learned how to make the potion even if he couldn't always afford/find the ingredients just in case he could procur the ingredients or find a good friend to entrust with making it for him. Or...maybe Lupin does know how to make it but through his poor potion-making skills bungled it a couple times. If he bungled it and got horrible results, then he'd probably be too gun-shy to try it again. Diana From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 06:51:07 2002 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 06:51:07 -0000 Subject: Underage wizards and magic use & Dobby In-Reply-To: <001001c2ac4a$40961450$94bf28d5@Blokey> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48826 Dom McDermott wrote: > I was wondering if anyone knew any more about the rules etc for the use of magic for non-graduates? If I'm reading it correctly (and forgive me for being unable to provide quotes to back myself up) 'underage wizards' (presumably those who have yet to graduate) are not permitted to use magic outside of school. > Does this mean *all* magic? And also how strict are they on these rules? > In COS, Harry is reprimanded by letter for using magic in the pudding incident. This letter comes to him even though it wasn't he who was the cause, so how do the MOM target individual underage wizards? Did they note that magic was used in the Dursley house and as the only wizard in the house, Harry must be responsible? If so, what would happen if, say Ron used magic in his house when his parents and older brothers were there? Would the MOM be able to ascertain that the magic was from Ron, or would there be the presumtion that it came from one of the qualified wizards (and witch)? > Another note on this subject is that two other occasions stick out in my memory. Firstly, one the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS, Ron is trying to turn Scabbers yellow. Elsewhere in the series I believe it mentions that the students are still able to use magic while onboard the Hogwarts Express, but to me it gives the impression that Ron has perhaps tried the spell before (ie: when not on the train) and also, around the same time, Hermione arrives and says that she has only tried a few simple spells, but they've all worked fine for her. > Secondly, during the build up to the quidditch world cup in GOF, there is an incident where a child uses his fathers wand to engorge a slug, and the mother gives the impression ('Havent' I told you not to play with your father's wand?' or words to the effect) that its not the first time. > Do the parents of this child receive letters from the MOM about improper magic use, and has Hermione already got a stain on her magical record before the first day of term at Hogwarts?? ME: I wondered about that as well, but then it occured to me that Harry was using magic for years without ever getting an admonishing letter from Hogwarts. He sicced a snake on Dudley, made his hair grow back in one night, turned his teacher's wig blue, shrunk an ugly brown sweater Aunt Petunia was trying to make him wear, jumped up to the roof when being chased by bullies at school, and that's just the ones we know about. Granted, Harry didn't know he was directly doing this magic, but then Hogwarts couldn't tell that it was Dobby doing magic in the Dursley home instead of Harry, either. Let's say that Hermione's childhood was the similar, with mysterious instances of magical occurences because she didn't know she was a witch until she got her Hogwart's letter, then all the other muggle-born witches and wizards would have had similar instances in their childhoods. They couldn't really be admonished for this as they are too young to really control what they were doing. Besides, these events signal that that child is a witch/wizard, which is something that can't be controlled. I would assume that young children using magic is up to parental authority and supervision, UNTIL that child enters Hogwarts as a student. Hermione probably got her letter, then her magic supplies, wand, etc. and then immediately tried some spells. She wouldn't have had any reason not to as there was no note in the Hogwart's letter [we saw Harry's letter word for word in PS/SS] telling the students NOT to use magic until they got to school. Most likely, I imagine that First Year students are not admonished not to use magic between the time they receive their letter and board the Hogwart's Express because they are so untrained and uneducated in magic that they couldn't do much harm. By the time they go back home and wait for their second year, those same students probably know enough magic to cause some trouble. Thus, Hogwarts hands out letters telling them not to use magic over the summer. As for whether MoM could distinguish Ron's use of magic in a houseful of wizards and witches, that is a very good question. Since MoM couldn't tell Dobby's house-elf brand of magic apart from the magic Harry creates when using his unique wand, then I doubt that MoM could pinpoint Ron using magic in house full of magic- users. MoM must decide that a houseful of wizards and witches would know to keep Ron [and others like him] from doing magic while on summer break because they were all previous graduates of Hogwarts and were familiar with the rules. I wonder if Lucius Malfoy is keeping Dracro from using magic during the summer? Hmmm. I think you are correct about why Harry got a letter. He is the only wizard in the Dursley house. If there's magic there, MoM must conclude he's the one doing it. This does make me wonder how Dobby got into Harry's room if Harry is protected so well. I mean, Dobby is a Death Eater's servant! Wouldn't you think that a servant owned by a Death Eater would have had trouble getting into Harry's room? I really wonder about how Dobby got past the protections and if that will be explained in the future. Maybe there is a lot more to house-elves than we've been led to believe. Diana From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 14:30:24 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 06:30:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: lupin and his transformations... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021226143024.54133.qmail@web14601.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48827 "Steve " wrote: Back to attitude with me treading very cautiously. If your comment about Chronic Fatigue Syndrom was intended to be some light hearted wit and/or humor, then I can appreciated as well as the next guy. But if it was intended to be some biting sarcasm... well, having Chronic Fatigue Syndrom... let's just say, that would hurt. ME: sigh. At the risk of getting OT, let me just say that my reference to CFS was neither meant to humorous or sarcastic. The original question was why Lupin could not teach during the day if he only transforms at night. I was saying that he needn't be in wolf form to be unable to teach class. Even in his human form he is so ill and tired that he sometimes cannot perform daily tasks or his job. And Harry and everyone else wonders what is wrong with him. He does not appear to have a specific illness, yet he isobviously not well, and looks extremely fatigued. Sometimes this is so severe that he cannot come to class. I know someone who suffers from CFS and I am saying that if I did not know that he was a werewolf, his symptoms would actually lead me to suspect Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It is a very serious disease, just as I am trying to argue that Lupin is very seriously ill around the time of the transformations. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kristen at sanderson-web.com Thu Dec 26 14:53:36 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 14:53:36 -0000 Subject: Prank Theory! (was Re: Marauder's Map) In-Reply-To: <1a1.defdac9.2b39b83a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48828 > Not a hole, just a variant. Snape sees one of the four consulting the > Map, making sure the coast is clear before joining Moony!Lupin. Since it was > Sirius who seems most to blame for the Prank, let's say it was Sirius. Snape > pulls a Malfoy, and sets Filch on Sirius. Sirius can't hide it, but does have > time to set it to insult mode. Filch confiscates it, and Sirius, furious, > tells Snape how to get past the whomping willow, then storms back to the > common room and tells Peter and James what happened and what he did. James > realizes the potential for disaster and charges off to warn/rescue Snape. > > Then, after Sirius has seemingly betrayed the Potters, Filch moves the > Map from Sirius' file to the file where the Twins found it in their first > year [I looked up when the found it]. This variant makes more sense to me - I'll jump on this bandwagon :). I couldn't believe that the marauders would ever use the map as bait since it is too valuble to them - they wouldn't want to chance losing such an important piece. If it was confiscated and Snape was responsible, that would definitely give Sirius a motive for sending him after Lupin in a fit of anger. We all know that Sirius has an explosive temper, so it would make sense that he would want to strike back at Snape for causing the loss of their map. It is also possible that the map was still in Sirius's file when the twins found it. They only saw something sticking out and didn't notice where it was located. Kristen From silveroak_us at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 15:48:54 2002 From: silveroak_us at yahoo.com (silveroak_us ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:48:54 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brooks " wrote: > Several people have pointed out aspects of CoS that fit into the > series. I would like to approach Laura's question from a different > direction. Perhaps the reason it seems irrelevant is because the > Harry Potter series did not truly begin until PoA. PS/SS is a stand- > alone book. It had to be, because nobody knew if it would sell. It > did sell, so a sequel was written. It was at that point that > Bloomsbury Publishing realized how far this gold mine could be taken, > and JKR sat down with the editors to develop an extended story line. > > I'm sure that she had ideas back at the beginning about how the story > and the characterizations would develop, but she didn't complete all > seven manuscripts before going out to find a publisher. If she *had* > done that, we would not have this insufferably long wait for OotP. > Events from CoS were worked into the series once it was decided that > there was to be a series. I hope this helps to explain why CoS seems > just slightly out of place. > > Brooks me now Sorry, but Ms. Rowling has consistently said, and there is no evidence to contradict her, that the books were all outlined before the first was published, and that she has remained relatively true to the outline ever since. While it is true she did not finish all seven manuscripts before going to a publisher, that does not mean that she did not have a very clear idea of what would be in each story. She has said that she had to rewrite parts of the fourth book because the story-line was not working well, so there is a certain amount of revising of the stories as she writes. At this time we can only speculate as to why the fifth book is not yet published, but we cannot use the wait as evidence that If she >*had* > done that, we would not have this insufferably long wait for OotP. > In conclusion, the second book is by no means "slightly out of place", rather it is an integral part of the entire seven book story. Although perhaps some of its relevance and connections remain murky. **Martin Miggs, the Mad Muggle** From kristen at sanderson-web.com Thu Dec 26 16:09:38 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:09:38 -0000 Subject: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Potter Hermione forever " wrote: > I was thinking about how the titles of Potter Books always lead to > something nasty (i.e. Phil. stone leading to Voldemort trying to > steal it, Chamber of Secret leading to Duel between Potter & Young > Voldemort, Azkaban which had horrors in store for Sirius & Hagrid, > GoF which lead Diggory & Potter to Voldemort leading to Diggory's > death & Voldy's Resurrection.) > Well, the actual Goblet of Fire was the magical object that got Harry into the tournament. It was treated with dark magic, but not the object of the story - more of a catalyst. > So I guess maybe OotP will also lead/point to something nasty!! > > So, I guess maybe he will be able to either (a) steal the Phoenix. Or > (b)maybe in the process of trying to steal the Phoenix, The Phoenix > may disappear in order to avoid being captured by Voldemort. > > The Phoenix may then leave a message/command/Order telling them about > his whereabouts/hiding place. > > In either of the scenarios Dumbledore /Harry will try to rescue the > Phoenix. That way Harry may go to a completely different magical > place ( as JKR said ) and readers may witness a nasty death of > Phoenix (as JKR said). The Phoenix may decide to sacrifice himself so > that he may not get into the hands of Voldemort. That would be > similar to Dumbledore destroying the Philosopher's Stone! > I can't argue about something nasty happening or that Fawkes would be the center of attention for a story, but I'm not sure that even Voldemort *could* capture Fawkes if he wanted to. Also, the phoenix is touted as a highly magical and faithful pet (CoS Ch 12). In Fantastic Beasts, the phoenix description states "it is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure." There was certainly evidence of that in GoF during the priori incantatem spell. For this reason, I'm not sure that Voldemort would be able to hold onto Fawkes. I can see how Fawkes could play a major role though. If both Voldemort and Harry's wands use phoenix feathers, could they do even stronger magic with the whole bird? Would this make him an object of want for Voldemort? Kristen From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 15:56:35 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:56:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48831 Hi. This is my first post (so please be kind), although I subscribed about 2 or 3 months ago. I've been overwhelmed by so many messages. I apologize in advance for my English, it is not my primary language (it's Spanish). I've been searching to see if this has been brought up before, but from what I've read, I conclude it hasn't. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Although I admire the ability to write in TBAY style, I don't have the patience to read it (sorry!). After rereading the books, and other books related to Potterverse, a thought struck me. I reread PoA to see if it is plausible, and it seems to be. The more I think about it, the more I believe it is true... I believe that before the night Voldemort was defeated, Remus and James switched bodies without telling anyone (except Lily) and that it was Remus who died, not James. James lives in Remus's body. Why do this? Maybe it was a way James could protect his family from the outside without giving himself away. Who would suspect such a thing? Maybe James was hoping to track down the spy. Maybe James wanted an alternate plan to the Fidelius Charm, just in case Sirius was forced to reveal where were the Potters. (I assume that when Sirius suggested to change himself for Peter, he was talking to Remus, not James, without knowing) How did they switch? It's possible they used the Switching spell. We really don't know much about it. Maybe the ability of changing bodies completely is a very high form of using the Switching spell, or maybe they combined the Switching Spell with some other spell. We know Sirius and James were top students and very talented. Anyway, somehow they managed to switch bodies. Later Remus posing as James (I'll call him FakeJames or RealRemus) was with Lily the night Voldemort attacked, he died making it impossible for RealJames (FakeRemus) to switch back to his body. The truth is, and it seems to me that everyone agrees by what I've read on other posts, that Lupin is a mysterious character in the sense that there is more to him that we know about Let's analyze the canon concerning Lupin in PoA (US paperback edition): Ch 10: Marauder's Map. (Pages 187-188) "When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum". Lupin made a sudden motion with his arm as though to grip Harry's shoulder, but thought better of it. This arm's motion has been discussed a lot. It's obvious Lupin was affected by what Harry said, even more if Lupin is really James... Maybe he didn't grip Harry's shoulder afraid of losing control of his emotions. Ch 11: The Firebolt. (Page 229) Professor Trelawney speaking about Lupin at the Christmas dinner: ..." He positively fled when I offered to crystal gaze for him..." (Later Dumbledore politely puts an end to this conversation.) One would think Lupin fled Trelawney wanting to hide the fact that he is a werewolf, but Lupin says at the Shrieking Shack that the whole staff knew he was a werewolf when Dumbledore hired him: Ch 17: Cat, Rat and Dog, (Page 346): "Dumbledore hired you when he knew you were a werewolf?" Ron gasped, "Is he mad?". "Some of the staff thought so," said Lupin. "He had to work very hard to convince certain teachers that I'm trustworthy". So maybe Lupin was trying to hide that he's James, or he could be avoiding Trelawney because he doesn't stand her the same way McGonogall does. :-) Curiously Dumbledore put an end to the conversation... Hmmm... Ch 12: The Patronus. Harry's first Patronus day lesson First try (page 239): "It's getting worse," Harry muttered "I could hear her louder that time - and him - Voldemort". Lupin looked paler than usual. Second try (pages 240-241): "I heard my dad," Harry mumbled. "That's the first time I've ever heard him - he tried to take on Voldemort himself, to give my mum time to run for it" ... "You heard James?" said Lupin in a strange voice. These reactions have been analyzed. Some say that the paler look is by hearing Voldemort's name, but he himself uses Voldemort's name without problem (which is something that caught Harry's attention. Ch 8: Flight of the Fat Lady. Page 155). The pale face and the strange voice could be explained by the fact that James (FakeRemus) is trying hard to control his emotions hearing his son speak of his wife's death, maybe at the same time he is also realizing (or receiving proof) that RealRemus was not the one who betrayed him, as he hears Harry say that who he thinks is his father offered his life to give Lily time to escape. Ch 13: Gryffindor vs. Ravenclaw. Page 263. Harry just won the Quidditch Cup after using the Patronus Spell on the fake Dementors "That was quite some Patronus," said a voice in Harry's ear. Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin, who looked both shaken and pleased. Shaken probably because Harry's Patronus is a stag, as is James Patronus and Animagus form (which at that moment Harry didn't know) Ch 17: Cat, Rat and Dog. Page 343 The door of the room burst open in a shower of red sparks and Harry wheeled around as Professor Lupin came hurtling in the room OK, red sparks suggest a true Gryffindor. But if you believe the Potters are Godric Gryffindor's heir, it could be a clue! Ch 17: Cat, Rat and Dog. Page 343 Then Lupin spoke in a very tense voice. "Where is he, Sirius?" ... Black's face was quite expressionless. For a few seconds he didn't move at all. Then very slowly he raised his empty hand and pointed straight at Ron. ... "But then...," Lupin muttered, staring at Black so intently it seemed he was trying to read his mind,"... why hasn't he shown himself before now? Unless" - Lupin's eyes suddenly widened, as though he was seeing something beyond Black, something none of the rest could see "Unless he was the one ... unless you switched without telling me?" Very slowly, his sunken gaze never leaving Lupin's face, Black nodded... Lupin lowered his wand gazing fixedly at Black. The Professor walked to Black's side, seized his hand, pulled him to his feet and embraced Black like a brother. This canon tells us that Lupin just realized it was Peter who betrayed the Potters, not Sirius. Now let's suppose Lupin is really James. The Brother Embrace makes much more sense (at least to me), James not only realizes Sirius was not guilty, he embraces him as his very, very best friend, the one who is Harry's godfather and was his best man at his wedding. Why did Black nod slowly? Maybe he is puzzled by the fact that Lupin wants to know why he wasn't told about the SWITCHING of the Secret Keeper (not about the EXISTENCE of the Keeper). It wouldn't make sense to tell others besides Dumbledore about who is the Keeper, considering the fact that they know there is a spy infiltrated among them. Maybe Black is just realizing that Lupin is really James. And James knows that Sirius just came to that conclusion. Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs. Page 355 Lupin is telling the story of how the others became Animagus to help him with his werewolf moments. "Well, highly exciting possibilities were open to us now that WE could all transform." Why did he say "we" instead of "they"? Remus does not turn into a werewolf at will. It just happens, he can't do anything about it. Maybe James slipped or maybe it's just a little typing error. Ch. 19. The Servant of Lord Voldemort. (Page 365): (Black speaking): "Harry... I as good as killed them", he croaked. "I persuaded Lily and James to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as a Secret Keeper instead of me... I'm to blame, I know it..." ... "And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies... I realized what Peter must've done... what I'd done..." His voice broke. He turned away. "Enough of this," said Lupin, and there was a steely note in his voice Harry had never heard before. A steely note in his voice... Why not a sad voice? Hearing Black really affected Lupin. More than if Lupin were just a friend (seems to me). Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort. (Page 372-373): "Remus!" Pettigrew squealed, turning to Lupin "You don't believe this... wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?" "Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter," said Lupin. "I assume that's why you didn't tell me, Sirius?" he said casually. "Forgive me, Remus" said Black. "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend," said Lupin, "And will you, in turn, forgive me for believing you were the spy?". "Of course," said Black... The first time I read these lines, I felt there was something wrong about the way this conversation was held up. Especially the way that Lupin puts words in Sirius's mouth. I'll explain. Lupin is assuming a thought that Sirius had and "casually" asks him to confirm it. It's like if Lupin is making up a lie (to everyone except Sirius) to explain something that otherwise has no explanation and needs Sirius to play along with the lie. How else could he cover up the very slip that made Sirius realize he is James? Sirius (realizing Lupin is James) asks James to forgive him. On the other hand, Dumbledore trusts Hagrid completely (trusted Hagrid to deliver Harry to Privet Drive when he was a baby). But as Hagrid said at the Three Broomsticks (Ch 10, Page 206), he didn't know that Sirius had been Lily and James Secret-Keeper. Why then would Lupin be told at that time about the Secret-Keeper stuff? It's supposed to be kept secret. Other than Dumbledore (who suggested the use of this spell), no one else should know about it, including Lupin. Ch 22: Owl Post Again. (Page 424) "I (Lupin) have no hesitation in saying that James would have been highly disappointed if his son had never found any of the secret passages out of the castle" Yep, he has NO hesitation in believing it. Later (page 425) "Well - goodbye Harry," he said smiling, "It has been a real pleasure teaching you. I feel sure we'll meet again sometime. Headmaster, there is no need to see me to the gates, I can manage..." Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible. "Good-bye, then, Remus," said Dumbledore soberly. Lupin shifted the grindylow tank slightly so that he and Dumbledore could shake hands. Then, with a final nod to Harry and a swift smile, Lupin left the office. Lupin was not happy to leave. But he wanted to get out of there quickly, alone. It must have been really difficult to say goodbye and to keep control of his emotions (especially if he is James). According to legend, (sorry can't remember which post it was mentioned), Remus was killed by his brother (Romulus), or his brother's followers. You could say that RealRemus died because of the betrayal of Wormtail, whom he considered a brother. I'm not stating that Wormtail was with Voldemort at the Potter's house that night; I do believe Voldemort was not alone, but if he was alone or not, and with whom, is pure speculation. But Wormtail was the spy and the traitor. If James lives in Remus's body, it would help explain how James gave Dumbledore his Invisibility Cloak and the key to the Potter's vault. Obviously at some time, Dumbledore would know about the switching of bodies. Maybe before the switching of bodies took place or sometime after Voldemort attacked and killed FakeJames and Lily. Lupin never makes a remark to Harry about how much he looks like his father. It seems a bit weird, considering James was Remus's best friend. The first time they spoke (just after the Dementor attack on Hogwarts Express), he simply addresses him as Harry, in a familiar way: (Ch. 5. The Dementor. Page 86). "We'll be at Hogwarts in ten minutes," said Professor Lupin. "Are you alright Harry?". Harry didn't ask how Professor Lupin knew his name. When the Dementor is about to kiss Harry, he is saved by a Patronus cast from someone who looked very familiar to him. We later find out that it was Harry (in the time loop) that cast this Patronus. But how did this loop begin? The time loop had to be created and someone else must have cast the Patronus the first time (as Harry was about to be kissed by a Dementor). Later, Harry seeking his father, assumed that it was him who had cast the Patronus, and it gave him the strength he needed to cast the Patronus successfully. Maybe the person who cast the Patronus the first time was there with Harry without Harry realizing it. Harry and James have the same Patronus. Maybe James (Lupin) was the first one to cast the spell (remember Lupin and Black separated when the Dementors kicked in). How come Black is in human form when he is affected by the Dementor? He had transformed into a dog to chase the werewolf, and he said that while he was in Azkaban he assumed doggy form so that the Dementors would not affect him so much. Why go back to human form? Maybe the answer to this question has something to do with James (Lupin) casting the Patronus the first time. Ch 13: Gryffindor vs. Ravenclaw. Page 265: He (Harry) had a very strange dream. He was walking through a forest, his Firebolt over his shoulder, following something silvery- white. It was winding its way through the trees ahead, and he could only catch glimpses of it between the leaves. Anxious to catch up with it, he sped up, but as he moved faster, so did his quarry. Harry broke into a run, and ahead he heard hooves gathering speed. Now he was running flat out, and ahead he could hear galloping. Then he turned a corner into the clearing and - ". Harry woke suddenly 'cause Ron screamed. Harry's dream was interrupted. Harry's dreams are important and interruptions usually hide something important. I believe Harry is witnessing in this dream the start of the Patronus loop. He was chasing his father but didn't get the opportunity to see him, or to know what happened next. The clearing may be the spot from which the Patronus Charm was cast. Well, I'm sorry this turned out so long. I hope it isn't too messy. It's just an idea that makes sense to me. Of course, canon isn't conclusive. But I think it helps explain a few things. We'll have to wait for the next books for more information. Your opinions are welcome. I have a question, I learned English when I was a girl (I lived a couple of years in London) so some of my English comes from intuition. Prongs is a name I would associate with a stag or horse, but I don't know why. Could please someone tell me? Also, what is the difference between a stag and a horse? Thanks sharana From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 16:25:56 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:25:56 -0000 Subject: Lions and Lamp-Like Eyes (WAS: House Symbols) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48832 Theresnothingtoit asked: > Why is the symbol of Gryffindor a lion and not a griffin? The lion > is used to symbolise bravery I think but there is quite a bit of > speculation that Dumbledore's office is the same office that Godric > Gryffindor used, still containing his pet phoenix. On that point > why isn't the symbol a phoenix either? Now me: The lion is used to symbolize courage and bravery, which are the qualities Gryffindor most highly prized in his students. In the Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan the lion is a Christ symbol. It could be that JKR had this in mind by choosing the lion as Gryffindor's symbol. In Narnia, a donkey also poses as a lion, which could be suggestive of a traitor in Gryffindor's midst (although the Sorting Hat says it's never been wrong...). I think having the phoenix as Gryffindor's symbol would have given too much away too early on in the series. It's not until Book 2 that we meet Fawkes, and it's not until Book 4 that we learn that both Harry and Voldemort have one of Fawkes' tail feathers as their wand core. The title of Book 5 - the Order of the Phoenix - clearly implies that the phoenix (probably Fawkes) will continue to be important in the series. On a different but related note, I've been wondering about the repeated references to Mrs. Norris' "lamp-like eyes." Virtually every time Mrs. Norris is mentioned, her "lamp-like eyes" are also mentioned. I've just finished reading Goudge's The Little White Horse, which JKR said was one of her favorite books as a child. In this book, a "dog" turns out to be a lion. Before we learn that the dog is a lion, the dog is described as having "lamp-like eyes." We know that wizards can turn into animals, but could it be possible that animals can turn into other forms of animals in the wizarding world? Could Mrs. Norris really be a lion in disguise? If so, could she have some sort of relationship to Gryffindor, since the symbol of Gryffindor House is the lion? If so, this could explain why she was the first target of the Basilisk's attack (perhaps it's misdirection that we're led to believe it's because she's the cat of a squib). ~Phyllis From silveroak_us at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 16:10:14 2002 From: silveroak_us at yahoo.com (silveroak_us ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:10:14 -0000 Subject: Harry as the Heir of Griffyndor?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48833 I have followed the debate about Harry possibly being the "Heir of Griffyndor" as a counterpoint to Riddle/Voldemort as the "Heir of Slytherin". It seems to make sense as a possible story thread as we see the books unwind in public (as they have already unspooled for Ms. Rowling in the privacy of her mind). However, I am troubled by something. I don't know how to integrate the Sorting Hat's willingness to put Harry into Slytherin at the beginning of the first book, and the Sorting Hat's reiteration later that Harry would have been appropriate to be placed into Slytherin. One wonders at the propriety of the "Heir of Griffyndor" being sorted into Slytherin House. {Perhaps as a "double agent" to undermine and overthrow the evil Heir of Slytherin } Just some idle woolgathering on this Boxing Day 2002. "silveroak_us" From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Dec 26 17:14:05 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:14:05 -0000 Subject: Welcome To Our Pub (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48834 Welcome To Our Pub (PS/SS Chap. 5) (To the tune of Welcome to the Land, from the 1999 musical Martin Guerre) Dedicated to Melody Timpani NOTE: This is a musical by Boubil and Schonberg, best known for Les Miserables. Stylistically, the musicals are very similar, both having a strong predilection for rousing choruses and anthems. Martin Guerre went through several revisions after opening in 1996: this song is from the 1999 version. Unfortunately, no MIDI or soundfiles, but the text can be found here: http://charivari.artshost.com/mgleedsact1.html#welcome THE SCENE: The Leaky Cauldron. The usual crowd of magical barflies in attendance. Enter HAGRID and Harry, on their way to Diagon Alley. BARMAID Is that you, Hagrid, What can we serve you tonight, love? HAGRID No thank you, I'm fine It's Hogswarts business I must ply BARKEEP There is only one thing that could Make you stay dry FIRST CUSTOMER Who's the lad? HAGRID He dispelled all the Dark Lord's wrongs ALL (crowding around HARRY) Who's the boy you're with? ? Do we recognize him? We see James' face and sweet Lily's eyes then Who else could it be but their son Harry? He's a blast from the past He's come home, off to Hogwarts School! (All the Cauldron patrons crowd around Harry) DORIS CROCKFORD Bless my soul! He's grown up And he looks so wise and prudent DEDALUS DIGGLE At Hogwarts this year I bet he'll be the perfect student SECOND CUSTOMER Oh my gosh, his parents Would have been so proud to see this THIRD CUSTOMER They should be so proud for he made Voldemort go remiss BARKEEP Drinks are on the house now BARMAID He seems so meek and mild DEDALUS He's not even spoken FIRST CUSTOMER But he's our savior-child DEDALUS & DORIS Son, this is a miracle We've waited not in vain ALL (raising their glasses to Harry) Harry you are welcome here You ended our pain! Welcome to the pub called the Leaky Cauldron Welcome to the wide world of wizardry Welcome to the world that you have made free Welcome back, welcome son, Welcome home You're back from the brink Mega-blast from the past Let's have one more drink (A trembling young man pushes his way through to Harry, and seizes his hand) QUIRRELL W-W-What is this, is it the lad? Are you sure you're Potter? Yes, y-you are, I'm so pleased! Can this be young P-Potter Who stopped You-Know-Who's reign Through some p-process arcane? T-T- Tell me Potter H-H-Harry Potter Do you know what I t-t-train? ALL (except Harry, spoken) DADA. (Trembling, QUIRRELL withdraws. The BARMAID refills everyone's glass) DEDALUS Eleven years ago it was Harry's birthday DORIS Something happened next, that was Voldy's worst day (ALL raise their glass in a toast to Harry) ALL (except HARRY & HAGRID) Lily bore this child who we tell now: Welcome to our bar, boy who bears the curse scar! Welcome to the inn where Hagrid gets soused Keep him safe in hand, may this youth be blessed! Banned the bad, did this lad, He dispersed ev'ry curse Boy Who Lived, you will prove you're a Superstar! Salut! (All drink deeply) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From jprobins at ix.netcom.com Thu Dec 26 17:59:56 2002 From: jprobins at ix.netcom.com (James P. Robinson III) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:59:56 -0600 Subject: Lupin's Career and Other Wizarding Schools Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021226115106.05e872a0@popd.ix.netcom.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48835 When HRH first meet Lupin on the Hogwarts Express, Hermione identifies him (he is sleeping) as "Professor R. J. Lupin" by reading that inscription off his battered, old case. Since the case is not new (and indeed is made to sound quite old), Lupin was a "Professor" before he got the DADA job at Hogwarts. In my experience, "Professor" is a form of address for a teacher and not some sort of degree marker (like Dr.). Therefore, I would suggest that Lupin had worked as a "Professor" or teacher prior to working at Hogwarts. I would also suggest that, in the absence of any canon indication at all that Lupin taught overseas or taught at Hogwarts in the past, Occam's Razor points to Lupin having taught at another Wizarding school in the UK. Admittedly, this could have been an informal school or a pre-Hogwarts Wizard elementary school or another Wizard school for children above 11 who could not go to Hogwarts, but it does point to some sort of extra-Hogwarts educational track, IMHO. Jim From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 18:12:44 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:12:44 -0000 Subject: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Potter Hermione forever " < nj13guy at y...> wrote: > Hi, This is my first post here. > > ...edited... > > So, Voldemort will try to acquire Fawkes the Phoenix to try & find > a solution to this problem. He knows he will be faced with the same > problem in his future duels with Harry Potter. He will not be able > to kill Harry unless he finds a solution to his wand sharing the > same core as that of Harry's wand! > Steve comments to this part: I like to remind people when this comes up that the Prior Incantatum effect only occurs when both wizards throw curses at that same time and those curses collide in mid-air. The collision of simultaneous curses occurred earlier in Gof between Harry and Draco. This is the scene where Hermione's teeth were enlarged. Of course, the Prioir Incantatum effect only occurs with wands that have the same core. -end this part- > So, I guess maybe he will be able to either (a) steal the Phoenix. > ... ... ... > > The Phoenix may then leave a message/command/Order telling them > about his whereabouts/hiding place. > > ...edited... Steve continues: ORDER of the Phoenix - cool idea. I couldn't swear to it, but I think this is the first time that theory has been expressed. What do I make of it? I'm not sure but it does have a reasonable path of logic behind it. -end Steve > > Waddaya think about this theory? > Does it make sense OR Do you guys/girls feel I have been having too > much Butter Beer ? > > Potter Granger forever bboy_mn From sgarfio at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 18:17:57 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 10:17:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021226181757.67317.qmail@web21401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48837 sharana (who apologized in advance for her English and then proceded to write an 18k essay in better English than many native speakers) wrote: > I believe that before the night Voldemort was defeated, Remus and > James switched bodies without telling anyone (except Lily) and that > it was Remus who died, not James. James lives in Remus's body. Wow, what a cool theory! My only questions are: 1. Why then does FakeRemus turn into a werewolf? 2. Why can't Harry stay with Lupin, since if he is really James, he would be a blood relative? 3. Why has FakeLupin been living like a pauper if he has all of James' money? Possible answers to my own questions are: 1a. We don't know very much about werewolves in the Potterverse, or anything at all about such an advanced Switching spell (or whatever they used). Maybe James has transformed so completely into Lupin that he even retains Lupin's "little secret". 1b. Since James was an animagus, maybe being in Lupin's body gives him the ability to transform into a wolf at will (rather than a stag), and he used the full moon as a ruse to leave the scene. He is really not a werewolf, but rather a wolf animagus. He also takes Snape's wolfsbane potion to keep his cover, since Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf and was likely the most vocal opponent to Lupin's appointment. The potion makes a non-werewolf just sick enough to lend credibility to his werewolf status. If this is the case, would RealRemus have transformed while he was in James' body? Maybe he didn't even last a month before Voldemort killed him, or maybe Lily knew how to make wolfsbane potion. 2a. There is some reason why Harry can't know that Lupin is James, which will be revealed in a later book (I'm thinking book 7; Harry will be denied his father until he no longer needs him). 2b. Going along with 1a above, James has so completely transformed into Lupin that he no longer affords Harry the "blood relative" protection. This is very difficult for him, since he wants so much to protect his son, which further explains his reactions to Harry's Dementor-induced memories. 3a. He wants Harry to have all his money. 3b. He gave Dumbledore his only vault key and can't access his money. 3c. Accessing his vault would blow his cover as Lupin. 3d. He has been accessing his vault all along, but has been taking only enough to survive. Harry wouldn't notice this because he has no idea how much money was in there to begin with, and wouldn't know if a few Galleons went missing. I'm also curious as to who you think knows about this switch (you said Lily was the only one who knew at the time, which means that the only person who knew and is still alive is FakeLupin). Dumbledore has a reason to trust a werewolf to the extent that he hired Lupin; maybe he knows about the switch? Maybe the switch mitigates or eliminates the werewolf transformation, leading Dumbledore to trust him. You seem to believe that Sirius figured it out in the Shrieking Shack. Anybody else? And what does this mean for the speculations about what Lupin has been doing for the past 12 years? If he's not really a werewolf, he wouldn't have any problems getting a job, except that James didn't need to work and may not have any marketable skills. > When the Dementor is about to kiss Harry, he is saved by a Patronus > cast from someone who looked very familiar to him. We later find out > that it was Harry (in the time loop) that cast this Patronus. But > how did this loop begin? I'm not so sure about this one. As a sci-fi fan myself, I see this as a classic temporal causality loop. In other words, when a person goes back into the past, two of that person exist for the period of time from the point that the person went back to until the point when they went back in time (this is supported in canon, as TimeTurned!Harry and TimeTurned!Hermione can observe themselves and must hide from their normal selves). The time traveler would experience this time period exactly twice, once in normal time and then again when they go back. But each time, both instances of the person exist, so they can potentially see each other (which is why the time travelers have to hide). The first time through the loop, Harry saw his future self across the lake. He didn't know this, because he didn't know about the Time Turner yet, and he was too distracted by the Dementors to recognize himself any better than "someone who looked strangely familiar". The second time around, Harry knows what's going on and has been observing himself, and casts the Patronus, at which point he realizes that he had seen his future self earlier as the Dementors overpowered him. The event that triggers the loop is simply the act of going back in time. Think of it this way: If a person from the future comes back to our time, we can see that person even though he hasn't yet used his time traveling device (and in fact may not even be born yet, depending on how far back in time he has come). This is why Harry is able to see his future self before he uses the Time Turner. Many sci-fi authors have grappled with this topic on many levels; for an excellent example see the series finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation (or for a simpler example, see the episode "Cause and Effect" - yes, I am a geek ;-P). sharana asked: > I have a question, I learned English when I was a girl (I lived a > couple of years in London) so some of my English comes from > intuition. Prongs is a name I would associate with a stag or horse, > but I don't know why. Could please someone tell me? Also, what is > the difference between a stag and a horse? Thanks "Prong" means something that branches out, like the tines of a fork (dientes de un tenedor) or the antlers of a stag. A stag is a male deer (venado), while horse = caballo, which has no antlers and therefore would not be nicknamed Prongs. I'm curious to know how old you were when you lived in London? I'm curious because I'm interested in language acquisition and early childhood development. Sherry ===== "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." -Dave Barry, "Things That It Took Me 50 Years to Learn" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Thu Dec 26 18:38:29 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:38:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is James Message-ID: <162.1925740f.2b3ca6a5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48838 The only problem with the James/Lupin switch theory, (as you were saying that perhaps James goes off during the full moon to make the it seem as though he were a werewolf, or that he can transform at will) is that during PoA, when Harry and Co. are leaving the Whomping Willow, and making their way towards the castle, Lupin begins to transform. Here's the scene: PoA p. 380: >>>>>"One wrong move, Peter," said Lupin threateningly ahead. His wand was still pointed sideways at Pettigrew's chest. Silently they tramped through the grounds, the castle lights growing slowly larger. Snape was still drifting weirdly ahead of Black, his chin bumping on his chest. And then - A cloud shifted. There were suddenly dim shadows on the ground. Their party was bathed in moonlight. Snape collided with Lupin, Pettigrew, and Ron, who had stopped abruptly. Black froze. He flung one arm out to make Harry and Hermione stop. Harry could see Lupin's silhouette. He had gone rigid. Then his limbs began to shake. "Oh my-" Hermione gasped. "He didn't take his potion tonight! He's not safe!" "Run," Black whispered. "Run. Now." But Harry couldn't run Ron was chained to Pettigrew and Lupin. He leapt forward but Black caught him around the chest and threw him back. "Leave it to me - RUN!" There was a terrible snarling noice. Lupin's head was lengthening. So was his body. His shoulders were hunching. Hair was sprouting visibly on his face and hands, which were curling into clawed paws. Crookshank's hair was on end again; he was backing away - As the werewolf reared, snapping its long jaws, Sirius disappeared from Harry's side. He had transformed. The enormous, bearlike dog bounded forward. As the werewolf wrenched itself free of the manacle binding it, the dog seized it around the neck and pulled it backward, away from Ron and Pettigrew. They were locked jaw to jawm claws ripping at each other -" <<<<< Now, I'm not saying thatthe entire theory is wrong, because it is plausible, but the part about James not carrying over Lupin's werewolf...ism (?) couldn't be true. In that scene, Lupin, or whoever it truly is, was transforming into a full-fledged werewolf, and Sirius knew how terribly dangerous it was, and was dragging him away from the others. If Lupin had truly been harmless (even if Sirius didn't know that) he would have ran off into the woods, without clawing and fighting with Siruis. By then everyone there knew of Sirius' innocence (with the stubborn exception of Snape), and if Lupin/Whoever had retreated quietly and swiftly, then Sirius would never have had to really fight with him, and Lupin would never have retaliated. Afterwards, Harry and Co. hear Sirius' whimpering, and they see that he was scratched and cut. Just my two k'nuts. -Chelsea [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From silveroak_us at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 18:52:43 2002 From: silveroak_us at yahoo.com (silveroak_us ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:52:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote at great length and eloquently concerning a theory that Lupin died along with Lily and that James is now masquerading. Small, teensy, itsy-bitsy problem, IMHO... During the confrontation between Voldemort and Harry near the end of the fourth book, Voldemort's wand shows its previous spells. These include the deaths of Cedric, Lily, and James(!) This would constitute pretty strong proof that James died when Lily did. (I will gloss over the apparent inconsistency in some editions of the fourth book concerning the order of Lily's and James's deaths) ** Martin Miggs, the Mad Muggle ** From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 19:46:40 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 19:46:40 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat Decisions (WAS: Harry as the Heir of Gryffindor?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48840 "silveroak_us" wrote: > However, I am troubled by something. I don't know how to integrate > the Sorting Hat's willingness to put Harry into Slytherin at the > beginning of the first book, and the Sorting Hat's reiteration > later that Harry would have been appropriate to be placed into > Slytherin. One wonders at the propriety of the "Heir of > Gryffindor" being sorted into Slytherin House. Now me: I think Dumbledore explains this at the end of CoS when he says to Harry: "'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...Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Griffindor. You know why that was. Think.' 'It only put me in Gryffindor,' said Harry in a defeated voice, 'because I asked not to go in Slytherin...' '*Exactly*,' said Dumbledore, beaming once more. 'Which makes you very *different* from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.'" A person can be born to be his/her ancestor's heir, but can chose to live a different life than that ancestor. Harry has qualities that Slytherin would have prized, and Tom Riddle had qualities that Gryffindor would have prized. So each of them could have gone the other way. Riddle wasn't forced to go bad because he was the Heir of Slytherin - he chose to go bad (IMO, he must have had the potential to choose to do good if a wand with Fawkes' tail feather chose him when he was a young wizard). As Mr. Ollivander told Harry in the wand shop when Fawkes' wand chose him, "I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter...After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great." Riddle chose to use his potential for greatness to do terrible things, while Harry is chosing to use his potential for greatness to do good things. In this way, Riddle is living out his destiny as the Heir of Slytherin, and Harry is living out his destiny as the Heir of Gryffindor (under my interpretation of this theory, anyway!). In PS/SS, the Sorting Hat tells Harry "Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness" and in CoS, the Hat tells Harry "you *would* have done well in Slytherin." However, note that in PS/SS, Harry was the one who told the Sorting Hat not to put him in Slytherin - before Harry brought it up, the Hat had not yet suggested an appropriate house for Harry. If Harry had not opposed being placed in Slytherin, the issue might not have come up at all. JKR has said that she will be further developing the character of the Sorting Hat in future books. It could be that the Hat is playing mind games with Harry to test his strength of conviction. Since the Hat, which was once Gryffindor's hat, brings Harry a sword that once belonged to Gryffindor in order to help Harry kill Slytherin's basilisk, it's fairly clear that the Hat thinks it made the right decision regarding Harry's house placement. ~Phyllis From srsiriusblack at aol.com Thu Dec 26 20:01:24 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:01:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sorting Hat Decisions (WAS: Harry as the Heir of Gryffind... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48841 In a message dated 26/12/2002 14:48:06 Eastern Standard Time, erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com writes: > > Gryffindor's hat, brings Harry a sword that once belonged to > Gryffindor in order to help Harry kill Slytherin's basilisk, it's > fairly clear that the Hat thinks it made the right decision regarding > Harry's house placement. Precisely. When Harry interviews Dumbledore after the evnts in the CoS, he questions if the Hat had made a mistake. Dumbledore points out that only a TRUE Gryffindor would have pulled Gryffindor's sword from the hat. If Harry were truly meant to be in Slytherin, he would have not conjured ( so to speak- not that he actually knew he was conjuring anything) the Gryffindor sword. I think Harry panics when it comes to being sorted. In a very short amount of time he has found out he is a wizard, that his parents were killed by Voldemort, Ron tells him that there isn't as witch or wizard who didn't "go bad" from Slytherin, he meets the slimey Draco and sees him be placed in Slyhtherin, he can probably firgure out that Voldemort was in Slytherin at this point, etc. I would probably ask the hat not to put me in that house either. Also, after the curse, Harry gains some of Voldemort's powers, things that probably made Voldemort the ideal Slytherin and as the heir, those passed on traits were imho the ideal of Slytherin. But as Phyllis points out, our choices are what makes us who/what we are. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 22:24:34 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:24:34 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48843 Steve (bboy_mn)wrote: > I like to remind people when this comes up that the Prior > Incantatum effect only occurs when both wizards throw curses at > that same time and those curses collide in mid-air. The collision > of simultaneous curses occurred earlier in Gof between Harry and > Draco. This is the scene where Hermione's teeth were enlarged. Of > course, the Prioir Incantatum effect only occurs with wands that > have the same core. Now me: In Ch. 36 of GoF, Sirius asks Dumbledore "So what happens when a wand meets its brother?" and Dumbledore responds "They will not work properly against each other...If, however, the owners of the wands force the wands to do battle...a very rare effect will take place. One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse." I don't read "wands doing battle" as necessarily meaning "curses colliding in mid-air." While Harry and Voldemort's curses in the graveyard did collide in mid-air, it seems as if there's enough vagueness in Dumbledore's comment to suggest that the priori incantatem can take place without a mid-air curse collision. Moreover, it's only after Harry forces the beads of light back into Voldemort's wand that the spell regurgitation commences. To me, the "wand battle" that Dumbledore references was when Harry and Voldemort's wands were locked together and Harry, strengthened by the phoenix song, forced the beads of light into Voldemort's wand, thereby winning the battle and forcing Voldemort's wand to regurgitate its past spells. As for what happens with the wands now...I can't see Voldemort holding on to his wand now that he knows that there's the potential for priori incantatem and thus, the potential that he'll again lose his ability to kill Harry. So my guess is that Voldemort will get a new wand (I think Harry will hold on to his wand, since he's not striving to kill Voldy. Unfortunately!). ~Phyllis From kethlenda at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 00:03:05 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:03:05 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "silveroak_us < silveroak_us at y...>" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo > " wrote at great length and > eloquently concerning a theory that Lupin died along with Lily and > that James is now masquerading. > > Small, teensy, itsy-bitsy problem, IMHO... > > During the confrontation between Voldemort and Harry near the end of > the fourth book, Voldemort's wand shows its previous spells. These > include the deaths of Cedric, Lily, and James(!) This would > constitute pretty strong proof that James died when Lily did. > (I will gloss over the apparent inconsistency in some editions of the > fourth book concerning the order of Lily's and James's deaths) > > ** Martin Miggs, the Mad Muggle ** But the theory can still stand, if Real!Lupin was in James' body when he died, and looked like James rather than himself. * shrug* Strix From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Thu Dec 26 22:48:49 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:48:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48845 silveroak_us wrote: >Small, teensy, itsy-bitsy problem, IMHO... > >During the confrontation between Voldemort and Harry near the end of >the fourth book, Voldemort's wand shows its previous spells. These >include the deaths of Cedric, Lily, and James(!) This would >constitute pretty strong proof that James died when Lily did. >(I will gloss over the apparent inconsistency in some editions of the >fourth book concerning the order of Lily's and James's deaths) Me: Yes you are completely right about this, but there is one possible explanation. I believe that Lily and RealRemus being dead still feel the need to protect RealJames identity (for some reason we will find out later). When Cedric died he asked Harry to take his body back to his parents. After James came out of the wand he told Harry that the Portkey was set to go back to Hogwarts. They show at least some level of conscience about what is going on in the living world. I admit that the "echo" concept as Dumbledore later explains to Harry is confusing to me, for these shadows that came out of the Voldemort's wand are not ghosts per se. Maybe the shadow is of the body that died, not of the soul of the person who died. (Yes, just guessing, we don't know anything else about it). GoF (US Hardcover Ed): Ch 36: The parting of ways. Page 697 -698: "No spell can revive the dead " said Dumbledore heavily. "All that would have happened is a kind of reverse echo. A shadow of the living Cedric would have emerged from the wand... am I correct Harry?" "He spoke to me," Harry said. "The... the ghost Cedric, or whatever he was, spoke." "An echo," said Dumbledore, "which retained Cedric's appearance and character..." Now that you mention the inconsistency in early editions of the order of Lily's and James's deaths, you got me thinking there... Page 667 says: "Your father's coming... " she said quietly. "Hold on for your father... it will be all right... hold on..." I imagine that in the early editions, it said something like: "Your mother's coming..." He said quietly. Which would make much more sense if RealRemus was saying it than RealJames. Going back to the most recent editions, Lily says "Hold on to your father" as trying to give Harry more strength (remember in PoA TimeTurnerHarry was eager to see if it was really his father who had cast the Patronus and when the Dementors get near Harry he hears his mother scream but he has less feedback on his father). Maybe Lily and FakeJames knew it was important to keep RealJames secret identity and that it was important to keep Harry concentrated on the connection of the wands. Revealing the truth to Harry at that point would be both dangerous for Harry and would be a revelation to Voldemort. Anyway it is just an interpretation. Chealsea wrote: >The only problem with the James/Lupin switch theory, (as you were saying that >perhaps James goes off during the full moon to make the it seem as though he >were a werewolf, or that he can transform at will) is that during PoA, when >Harry and Co. are leaving the Whomping Willow, and making their way towards >the castle, Lupin begins to transform. and Sherry wrote: >1. Why then does FakeRemus turn into a werewolf? > >Since James was an animagus, maybe being in Lupin's body gives him the >ability to transform into a wolf at will (rather than a stag), and he used the >full moon as a ruse to leave the scene. He is really not a werewolf, but >rather a wolf animagus. He also takes Snape's wolfsbane potion to keep his >cover, since Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf and was likely the most vocal >opponent to Lupin's appointment Me: I don't think James can control Lupin's body at will. I just believe their souls (with their intelligence, knowledge, abilities and whatever else) changed bodies. Lupin is a werewolf because he was bitten by one when he was a kid; it is a biological condition (like women's PMS). Being a werewolf is not part of Lupin's soul, it is a biological problem. James being in Lupin's body cannot control it better than RealRemus could. He just turns into a werewolf when the moon smiles at him :-). I don't even dare to say that FakeRemus can animagate into a stag, as we know it is a very complex procedure and we don't know what it involves, but I do believe his Patronus is a stag, because the Patronus reflects at some level your personality (which is part of your soul, you could say) so that doesn't change (sorry can't remember where in canon it says something like this). We never get to see Lupin cast his Patronus. Sherry also wrote: >Why can't Harry stay with Lupin, since if he is really James, he would be a blood relative? > > There is some reason why Harry can't know that Lupin is James, which will >be revealed in a later book (I'm thinking book 7; Harry will be denied his >father until he no longer needs him). Me: I do believe that it is important to keep James identity secret for now. Why? Could be many reasons. It is a hidden card Dumbledore and James (and unknowingly Harry) have against Voldemort. For some reason the Potters are very important. Voldemort sometimes gets careless with little details and if he is caught off guard, the good guys have a better chance to win. Although I don't think it has to be until Harry no longer needs his father. Sherry again: >3. Why has FakeLupin been living like a pauper if he has all of James' money? > >3a. He wants Harry to have all his money. >3b. He gave Dumbledore his only vault key and can't access his money. >3c. Accessing his vault would blow his cover as Lupin. >3d. He has been accessing his vault all along, but has been taking only enough >to survive. Harry wouldn't notice this because he has no idea how much money >was in there to begin with, and wouldn't know if a few Galleons went missing. Me: Good guesses although I think 3a and 3b wouldn't be enough reason. I think 3c is the best reason of all. 3d could happen but I believe FakeLupin wouldn't go to the vault directly but have Dumbledore (or Dumbledore have Hagrid) do it for him, to not blow his cover. Sherry wrote: >I'm also curious as to who you think knows about this switch (you said Lily was >the only one who knew at the time, which means that the only person who knew >and is still alive is FakeLupin). Me: Other than James and Remus, I believe Lily knew for two reasons: 1.- For er... Marital reasons ;-) 2.- Lily obviously wouldn't betray her husband and son, her sacrifice gave Harry extra protection. She could be trusted. To say someone else knew about it at the time the switching took place would be guessing. Probably no one else did (they were doing secret stuff to protect themselves as they knew there was a spy between them). But I think it would be reasonable to think that RealJames told Dumbledore some time later (if not before) about the switch (When? Beats me). Remember in SS/PS when Harry receives his father's Invisibility Cloak, Dumbledore writes he received it from James before he died. Dumbledore couldn't say it was after he died as that would raise some awkward questions. And he has the Potter's vault key. I believe Dumbledore knows now. Someone else? Don't think so. By canon you could conclude that Snape and Trelawny DON'T know. Definitely. Sherry again: > Dumbledore has a reason to trust a werewolf >to the extent that he hired Lupin; maybe he knows about the switch? Maybe the >switch mitigates or eliminates the werewolf transformation, leading Dumbledore >to trust him. Remember in the Shack Lupin tells Harry that Dumbledore gave him a chance to study at Hogwarts, planting the Whomping Willow and spreading rumors about how haunted the Shack was so Lupin could go there during his werewolf cycle. I believe Dumbledore has always trusted Lupin and that trust has nothing to do with the Switching. And the switching does not eliminate the werewolf transformation (as I said before). Sherry: >You seem to believe that Sirius figured it out in the Shrieking >Shack. Anybody else? And what does this mean for the speculations about what >Lupin has been doing for the past 12 years? If he's not really a werewolf, he >wouldn't have any problems getting a job, except that James didn't need to work >and may not have any marketable skills. Me: Yes, Sirius reactions seem to indicate (to me at least) that he figured it out at the Shack. He is a smart guy and very close friend to James, to the point of being asked to be the Potter's Secret Keeper. I don't think that anyone else in the Shack realized it, because they just didn't think too much about it. (Sirius and RealJames have had 12 years thinking about who betrayed them). Peter (that RAT!!!) was too terrified to think much about it and the kids were receiving too much information and were utterly confused about everything. Haven't you realized that sometimes the kids could have the chance to ask some important questions about things that have happened and they just don't do it? Maybe it's because they are kids. I think that eventually any of them could have arrived to the same conclusion, but then RealJames "casually" asked Sirius if Sirius thought him to be a spy, misleading the thoughts of the others and cutting off that loose end. Oh, Snape hadn't arrived yet so he didn't hear that part of the conversation. What has Lupin been doing the last 12 years? Good question. Some activities I can think off are: 1.- RealJames has trouble adapting to his new body with werewolf cycles. 2.- RealJames must be REALLY depressed by the death of his wife and the betrayal of his best friend (remember that all those years he thought it was Sirius who betrayed him, he realized it was Peter when he arrived at the Shack and saw that the Rat was still hiding himself). Imagine all the inner turmoil that comes with these thoughts, adding the fact that he couldn't protect his family. 3.- RealJames must act like Lupin to keep his cover. Sherry wrote to my question on how did the time loop begin as I believe that the first time Harry sees the Patronus cast by whom we later find out was himself, was not himself but truely his father: >I'm not so sure about this one. As a sci-fi fan myself, I see this as a >classic temporal causality loop. >The event that triggers the loop is simply the act of going >back in time. >Many sci-fi authors have grappled with this topic on many levels; >for an excellent example see the series finale of Star Trek: The Next >Generation (or for a simpler example, see the episode "Cause and Effect" - yes, >I am a geek ;-P). Me: Don't worry Sherry, I'm a sci-fi fan (and a geek) myself, especially ST: Next Generation and Stargate. The 2 episodes you mention are excellent! (And of all Sci-fi series, I believe these too are those who handle time loop theories the best). But if I remember correctly they try to break the loop, we don't see them getting caught in it (causing it) the first time. Back to Potterverse you say that the event that triggers the loop is the act of going back in time. Yes, but you have to be alive to go back in time. Harry is alive because a Patronus drove the Dementors away before the kiss. Even if he had received the kiss and goes back in time, he would not be able (being soulless) to cast the Patronus, so someone else must have done it (the first time), Harry later going back in time changed the fact on who cast the Patronus from that loop on, but he couldn't have cast it the first time. The Wolfsbane Potion does not prevent the werewolf to turn into a werewolf, it gives him some self control as to not harm other people and himself. Maybe Werewolf!James had enough control to cast the Patronus the first time (wild guess) Sherry asked: >I'm curious to know how old you were when you lived in London? I'm >curious because I'm interested in language acquisition and early childhood >development. I was 5 when I arrived to London, left when I just turned 8. Completely forgot my Spanish. My mother says my teachers were amazed to find out I was not an English girl, for my accent. Here I had to study in a bilingual school to relearn Spanish. Of course it wasn't English but American, so I had a hard time making myself understood in English at school too. Anyway, I relearned Spanish, acquired a strange mix of English and American, which is why I sometimes don't know if I am speaking correctly, some things sound weird to me. For many years I managed to not forget my English reading books (Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys kind of stuff, while still being a kid). I have always tried to acquire English (American) editions of the books I read and the movies (DVD's ) I buy because translations can be awful, especially in technical books. Lately I have CableTV which has helped me a lot. The first months with Cable I had a hard time understanding American accent and I had to turn on the Close Caption to read everything. Now I keep on doing it because I don't understand some slang... And yes, reading endless e-mails on a subject that one loves does help a lot!! Anyway, it's a learning process, I guess it never ends. :-) Hey, it just occurred to me that James being in Remus's body is another reason to say that it was Lily's death that gave Harry his protection. James is never mentioned in this protection (which is true if he didn't die). Yes I know, no proof!! Question: What is a Foe Glass? It is mentioned at the end of GoF, while FakeMoody reveals himself to Harry and Harry sees Dumbledore, Minerva and Snape through the Foe Glass. Sherry wrote: "The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above-average drivers." Me: Yeah, especially from where I come from ;-)) Sharana... From kristen at sanderson-web.com Fri Dec 27 01:13:52 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 01:13:52 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48846 > Sharana: > When Cedric died he asked Harry to take his body back to his > parents. After James came out of the wand he told Harry that the > Portkey was set to go back to Hogwarts. They show at least some > level of conscience about what is going on in the living world. I > admit that the "echo" concept as Dumbledore later explains to Harry > is confusing to me, for these shadows that came out of the > Voldemort's wand are not ghosts per se. Maybe the shadow is of the > body that died, not of the soul of the person who died. (Yes, just > guessing, we don't know anything else about it). > > "An echo," said Dumbledore, "which retained Cedric's appearance and > character..." > Me: I would think that the shadow would reflect the soul of the person that died and it would therefore look like Remus, not Fake!James, but that's the biggest hole I can find. You have an interesting theory. > Now that you mention the inconsistency in early editions of the > order of Lily's and James's deaths, you got me thinking there... > > Page 667 says: > "Your father's coming... " she said quietly. "Hold on for your > father... it will be all right... hold on..." > > I imagine that in the early editions, it said something like: > "Your mother's coming..." He said quietly. > Which would make much more sense if RealRemus was saying it than > RealJames. > Me: I believe that this change was due to an admitted mistake on JKR's part. I have the old version and the difference is that in my (old) version, James comes out first while in the newer one, Lily comes out first. > > I don't even dare to say that FakeRemus can animagate into a stag, > as we know it is a very complex procedure and we don't know what it > involves, but I do believe his Patronus is a stag, because the > Patronus reflects at some level your personality (which is part of > your soul, you could say) so that doesn't change (sorry can't > remember where in canon it says something like this). We never get > to see Lupin cast his Patronus. > Lupin casts a Patronus on the train to Hogwarts to deflect the dementor. However, it is a small one and maybe didn't show true form. > > Sherry again: > >3. Why has FakeLupin been living like a pauper if he has all of > James' money? > > > >3a. He wants Harry to have all his money. > >3b. He gave Dumbledore his only vault key and can't access his > money. > >3c. Accessing his vault would blow his cover as Lupin. > >3d. He has been accessing his vault all along, but has been taking > only enough > >to survive. Harry wouldn't notice this because he has no idea how > much money > >was in there to begin with, and wouldn't know if a few Galleons > went missing. > > Sharana: > Good guesses although I think 3a and 3b wouldn't be enough reason. I > think 3c is the best reason of all. 3d could happen but I believe > FakeLupin wouldn't go to the vault directly but have Dumbledore (or > Dumbledore have Hagrid) do it for him, to not blow his cover. > Me: I don't think 3c would wash. In PoA, Sirius gets money from his vault to buy the Firebolt, and it did not blow his cover during a massive manhunt. I can't imagine that Fake!Remus would have problems if Sirius did not. > Sharana: > Back to Potterverse you say that the event that triggers the loop is > the act of going back in time. Yes, but you have to be alive to go > back in time. Harry is alive because a Patronus drove the Dementors > away before the kiss. Even if he had received the kiss and goes back > in time, he would not be able (being soulless) to cast the Patronus, > so someone else must have done it (the first time), Harry later > going back in time changed the fact on who cast the Patronus from > that loop on, but he couldn't have cast it the first time. > > The Wolfsbane Potion does not prevent the werewolf to turn into a > werewolf, it gives him some self control as to not harm other people > and himself. Maybe Werewolf!James had enough control to cast the > Patronus the first time (wild guess) > Me: Ok, I admit it, this time loop talk gives me a headache. Maybe I'm being very dense here, but why couldn't it be Harry the first time? If it had to be someone else, then who attended all of Hermione's classes? > > Question: What is a Foe Glass? It is mentioned at the end of GoF, > while FakeMoody reveals himself to Harry and Harry sees Dumbledore, > Minerva and Snape through the Foe Glass. > Me: The Foe glass is a dark detector that Prof. Moody had to detect his enemies coming after him. I can only guess that when real Moody became Fake!Moody, the Foe-Glass showed the foes of Fake!Moody. (GoF p. 343) "Oh that's my Foe-Glass. See them out there, skulking around? I'm not really in trouble until I see the whites of their eyes. That's when I open my trunk." Kristen From kristen at sanderson-web.com Fri Dec 27 01:14:01 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 01:14:01 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48847 > Sharana: > When Cedric died he asked Harry to take his body back to his > parents. After James came out of the wand he told Harry that the > Portkey was set to go back to Hogwarts. They show at least some > level of conscience about what is going on in the living world. I > admit that the "echo" concept as Dumbledore later explains to Harry > is confusing to me, for these shadows that came out of the > Voldemort's wand are not ghosts per se. Maybe the shadow is of the > body that died, not of the soul of the person who died. (Yes, just > guessing, we don't know anything else about it). > > "An echo," said Dumbledore, "which retained Cedric's appearance and > character..." > Me: I would think that the shadow would reflect the soul of the person that died and it would therefore look like Remus, not Fake!James, but that's the biggest hole I can find. You have an interesting theory. > Now that you mention the inconsistency in early editions of the > order of Lily's and James's deaths, you got me thinking there... > > Page 667 says: > "Your father's coming... " she said quietly. "Hold on for your > father... it will be all right... hold on..." > > I imagine that in the early editions, it said something like: > "Your mother's coming..." He said quietly. > Which would make much more sense if RealRemus was saying it than > RealJames. > Me: I believe that this change was due to an admitted mistake on JKR's part. I have the old version and the difference is that in my (old) version, James comes out first while in the newer one, Lily comes out first. > > I don't even dare to say that FakeRemus can animagate into a stag, > as we know it is a very complex procedure and we don't know what it > involves, but I do believe his Patronus is a stag, because the > Patronus reflects at some level your personality (which is part of > your soul, you could say) so that doesn't change (sorry can't > remember where in canon it says something like this). We never get > to see Lupin cast his Patronus. > Lupin casts a Patronus on the train to Hogwarts to deflect the dementor. However, it is a small one and maybe didn't show true form. > > Sherry again: > >3. Why has FakeLupin been living like a pauper if he has all of > James' money? > > > >3a. He wants Harry to have all his money. > >3b. He gave Dumbledore his only vault key and can't access his > money. > >3c. Accessing his vault would blow his cover as Lupin. > >3d. He has been accessing his vault all along, but has been taking > only enough > >to survive. Harry wouldn't notice this because he has no idea how > much money > >was in there to begin with, and wouldn't know if a few Galleons > went missing. > > Sharana: > Good guesses although I think 3a and 3b wouldn't be enough reason. I > think 3c is the best reason of all. 3d could happen but I believe > FakeLupin wouldn't go to the vault directly but have Dumbledore (or > Dumbledore have Hagrid) do it for him, to not blow his cover. > Me: I don't think 3c would wash. In PoA, Sirius gets money from his vault to buy the Firebolt, and it did not blow his cover during a massive manhunt. I can't imagine that Fake!Remus would have problems if Sirius did not. > Sharana: > Back to Potterverse you say that the event that triggers the loop is > the act of going back in time. Yes, but you have to be alive to go > back in time. Harry is alive because a Patronus drove the Dementors > away before the kiss. Even if he had received the kiss and goes back > in time, he would not be able (being soulless) to cast the Patronus, > so someone else must have done it (the first time), Harry later > going back in time changed the fact on who cast the Patronus from > that loop on, but he couldn't have cast it the first time. > > The Wolfsbane Potion does not prevent the werewolf to turn into a > werewolf, it gives him some self control as to not harm other people > and himself. Maybe Werewolf!James had enough control to cast the > Patronus the first time (wild guess) > Me: Ok, I admit it, this time loop talk gives me a headache. Maybe I'm being very dense here, but why couldn't it be Harry the first time? If it had to be someone else, then who attended all of Hermione's classes? > > Question: What is a Foe Glass? It is mentioned at the end of GoF, > while FakeMoody reveals himself to Harry and Harry sees Dumbledore, > Minerva and Snape through the Foe Glass. > Me: The Foe glass is a dark detector that Prof. Moody had to detect his enemies coming after him. I can only guess that when real Moody became Fake!Moody, the Foe-Glass showed the foes of Fake!Moody. (GoF p. 343) "Oh that's my Foe-Glass. See them out there, skulking around? I'm not really in trouble until I see the whites of their eyes. That's when I open my trunk." Kristen From andie at knownet.net Thu Dec 26 21:38:13 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (Andrea M. Emerick) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 16:38:13 -0500 Subject: Lupin is James References: Message-ID: <004e01c2ad27$19254d40$48aefea9@computer> No: HPFGUIDX 48848 I have a few questions about this (very well thought out) theory... :) sharana wrote: Ch 17: Cat, Rat and Dog. Page 343 "Where is he, Sirius?" ... Black's face was quite expressionless. For a few seconds he didn't move at all. Then very slowly he raised his empty hand and pointed straight at Ron. ... "But then...," Lupin muttered, staring at Black so intently it seemed he was trying to read his mind,"... why hasn't he shown himself before now? Unless" - Lupin's eyes suddenly widened, as though he was seeing something beyond Black, something none of the rest could see "Unless he was the one ... unless you switched without telling me?" Very slowly, his sunken gaze never leaving Lupin's face, Black nodded... Lupin lowered his wand gazing fixedly at Black. The Professor walked to Black's side, seized his hand, pulled him to his feet and embraced Black like a brother. Me: Wouldn't he (fakeremus) know about Sirius' innocence and Peter's guilt before this episode if he was really James? James would be the one doing the secret-keeper switching, wouldn't he, or at least have a say in it? Even Dumbledore says that he offered to be the Potter's secret keeper, but James insisted that it be Sirius. That leads me to believe that James & Lily would be making that decision, thus knowing that Peter was the spy. sharana wrote: On the other hand, Dumbledore trusts Hagrid completely (trusted Hagrid to deliver Harry to Privet Drive when he was a baby). But as Hagrid said at the Three Broomsticks (Ch 10, Page 206), he didn't know that Sirius had been Lily and James Secret-Keeper. Why then would Lupin be told at that time about the Secret-Keeper stuff? It's supposed to be kept secret. Other than Dumbledore (who suggested the use of this spell), no one else should know about it, including Lupin. me: My impression would be that Lupin didn't know about it at the time, but the story of Sirus' & Peter's confrontation in the street afterwards is very well known, thus Lupin would know about it now even if he didn't then. Just a few thoughts... :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dangermousehq at hotmail.com Thu Dec 26 19:53:03 2002 From: dangermousehq at hotmail.com (dangermousehq at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:53:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS irrelevant? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48849 Miggs: In conclusion, the second book is by no means "slightly out of place", rather it is an integral part of the entire seven book story. Although perhaps some of its relevance and connections remain murky. Me: I totally agree with you. Chamber of Secrets is, no matter what, still 1/4 of the entire series thus far. It might be seen as "the odd one out" for different reasons, but if J.K. is as good a writer as I hope, she'll bring things back to haunt us from CoS somehow. I like the idea that Ginny was given some of Riddle's powers, similar to what happened to Harry after Voldemort's first fall. Perhaps J.K. will use CoS to severely deepen Ginny's character and make her a far more central role in the series. -DM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andie at knownet.net Thu Dec 26 22:10:08 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (grindieloe ) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:10:08 -0000 Subject: moscow times In-Reply-To: <194.1285fe22.2b3cbcde@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48850 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: Snuffles, wondering what other people think about this kind of rubbish Me: Well Snuffles, I think you've said it all... it's simply rubbish. Anyone who has read any of the Potter books must be able to see the deep rooted moral issues that penetrate each of them. Harry, being the hero/main character, is constantly forced to deal with difficult issues in his life. (Frankly, he deals with things better than many adults that I know.) Being an educator, I know how important (and difficult) it is to teach children character education. Harry is able to do that simply by being Harry. While he does occasionally break rules, which I've heard is a sore spot with some, he is a kid! All kids tend to break rules now and again, but overall, Harry is a quality person that has excellent character. I don't understand why people who simply dislike the series feel the need to ban what I (and many others I'm sure) think of as a wonderful gift of quality literature. Bottom line: If they don't like Harry Potter (considering they have actually read the series and are not going on rumors), they don't have to continue to read it; just let the rest of us get on with our Potter adventures! grindieloe :) From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 05:37:56 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 05:37:56 -0000 Subject: Underage wizards and magic use In-Reply-To: <001001c2ac4a$40961450$94bf28d5@Blokey> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dom McDermott" wrote: > I was wondering if anyone knew any more about the rules etc for > the use of magic for non-graduates? > > -end dom - this part- bboy_mn: Once again someone dares to ask me to expound on one of my favorite theories. ;) We need to remember we are dealing with two separate but related laws here. The first is magic by underage wizards. The second is magic by anyone in anyway that can be detected by Muggles. I rate magic by underage wizards IN the wizard world in a reasonably contained area (like Fred and Georges bedroom) and with somelimited degree of adult supervision are mischief. In some ways it's like teenage drinking, there is so much of it that the law can't possibly deal with it, so as long as it not 'in your face' or causing a problem, they generally ignore it. Now we have the law that says, nobody, nowhere, at no time can let muggles become aware that there is a magic world. The primary purpose of the Ministry, is to keep muggles from finding out about magic. Harry did a levitation charm at the Durley's while they had muggle guests, although, the guests were unaware that it was a magic event. Actually, it was Dobby, but it seems that the Ministry simple detected the occurance of substantial magic, and sent a letter. His crime was not magic, but nearly exposing the wizard world. Blowing up his Aunt Marge without a doubt invloved a muggle in magic. The was an infraction of such degree that it require intervention by the magic reversal squad and the obliviators. These are significant and substantial crimes, or offenses; perhaps crimes is a little too strong a word. Next we have Fred and George practicing magic and inventing tricks in thier bedroom which is inside their home, and their home, while not in the magic world, is a magical place secluded from muggles. I really don't think the ministry has time or resources to chase down every little kid who performs magic in way that causes no harm. Since the Ministry detects magic at Harry's place so quickly, it is assumed by many that the Ministry and/or Dumbledore engage in some type of monitoring of tehg Dursley's house. I believe Harry is so closely guard, not because of what he has done, but because of what it was foretold that he will do. Some where in Harry's future hangs the fate of the whole wizard world. They are holding back as much of what they know about Harry's future as they can. The fate of the world is a pretty heavy load for a little boy. -end this part- Dom adds: > > - Another BTW, and rather much on a tangent, is just a comment on rather coincidental timing. If I'm not mistaken, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle Seniors knew each other from their DE days, tho I'm not sure of any evidence that they were necessarily in the same year at Hogwarts etc. Is it not strange that they should all have sons effectively in the same academic year? And in the same year also as James and Lily Potter, and Arthur and Molly Weasley!! (although with the latter its not so much coincidence, as they seem to have made a sport out of it ;-) > Dom bboy_mn continues: There are some who have the theory that it was prophesized that a boy born in Harry birth year would lead to the defeat of Voldemort. So, Voldie told all this Death Eaters to go out and make baby boys in the off chance that one of them would be the 'savior' or 'destroyer' depending on how you look at it. Perhaps if it was the son of a Death Eater, Voldie could persuade him to join the dark side. There is a similar event in the Bible, but I can't tell you what or where. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From nj13guy at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 05:04:23 2002 From: nj13guy at yahoo.com (Potter Hermione forever ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 05:04:23 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48852 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erisedstraeh2002 " wrote: > Steve (bboy_mn)wrote: > > As for what happens with the wands now...I can't see Voldemort > holding on to his wand now that he knows that there's the potential > for priori incantatem and thus, the potential that he'll again lose > his ability to kill Harry. So my guess is that Voldemort will get a > new wand (I think Harry will hold on to his wand, since he's not > striving to kill Voldy. Unfortunately!). So, Can an owner just change his wand without some negative side effects? Didn't Mr. Ollivander say that each wand is unique to his owner? So, he must have given the best possible wand to Voldemort. Thus, Voldemort can't possibly get a better wand now? (or can he?) Voldemort must be rattled by the Priori Incantatem effect of his wand during the events at end of GoF. So he must be looking for a solution to it. He would dare not face Harry again until he does. Maybe, he would try to acquire the Phoenix for that purpose. Fawkes may sacrifice himself OR disappear OR go into hiding to avoid being captured by Voldemort. jmho From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 06:14:32 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 06:14:32 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erisedstraeh2002 " wrote: > Steve (bboy_mn)wrote: > > > I like to remind people when this comes up that the Prior > > Incantatum effect only occurs when both wizards throw curses at > > that same time and those curses collide in mid-air. The collision > > of simultaneous curses occurred earlier in Gof between Harry and > > Draco. This is the scene where Hermione's teeth were enlarged. Of > > course, the Prioir Incantatum effect only occurs with wands that > > have the same core. > > Now me: > > In Ch. 36 of GoF, Sirius asks Dumbledore "So what happens when a > wand meets its brother?" and Dumbledore responds "They will not work > properly against each other...If, however, the owners of the wands > force the wands to do battle...a very rare effect will take place. > One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has > performed - in reverse." > > I don't read "wands doing battle" as necessarily meaning "curses > colliding in mid-air." -end Phyllis this part- bboy_mn replies: Minor technicality, as interpreted by me, if the curses don't collide then it is the wizards doing the battle not the wands. When the curses collide, it is the force of one wand against the other wand. I think the duel between Malfoy and Harry where the curses collided and ricocheted off each other was the setup for this. It made us aware the this simultaneious curses was an unusual circumstance. -end this part- Phyllis continues: > While Harry and Voldemort's curses in the graveyard did collide > in mid-air, it seems as if there's enough vagueness in Dumbledore's > comment to suggest that the priori incantatem can take place > without a mid-air curse collision. > > Moreover, it's only after Harry forces the beads of light back into > Voldemort's wand that the spell regurgitation commences. To me, > the "wand battle" that Dumbledore references was when Harry and > Voldemort's wands were locked together and Harry, strengthened by > the phoenix song, forced the beads of light into Voldemort's wand, > thereby winning the battle and forcing Voldemort's wand to > regurgitate its past spells. > > -end Phyllis this part- bboy_mm respomds: Believe it or not, I agree with you. When the curses collided and an arc of golden light was struck between the wands, that was the 'Brother Effect'. Next came a duel of wizarding power. I believe that neither Harry or Voldie understood what was going on, but Voldie clearly felt that if he could force the beads of light into Harry's wand, it would demonstrate that he was the more powerful wizards. Now the Prior Incantatum effect; when Harry force the beads of light into Voldemort's wand, the same Prior Incantatum spell we saw demonstrated at the World Cup occurred. So while they can't curse each other in this one simultanious curse circumstances, they can curse each other. Voldie cursed Harry several times in the graveyard. When Voldie cursed Harry, it was wand against wizard, only when they cursed simultaniously was it wand against wand. Admittedly, it is the power of the wizards backing up the wands. -end this part- > > As for what happens with the wands now...I can't see Voldemort > holding on to his wand now that he knows that there's the potential > for priori incantatem and thus, the potential that he'll again lose > his ability to kill Harry. So my guess is that Voldemort will get a > new wand (I think Harry will hold on to his wand, since he's not > striving to kill Voldy. Unfortunately!). > > ~Phyllis bboy_mn concludes: Tuff call. I think Voldie will hold on to his wand and try to find some other way out of the 'Brother Wand Effect'. I'm sure once he figured it out, he told the Death Eaters that this was again a fluke. A random occurance of unlikely circumstances and bad luck that lead Harry to defeat and escape him again. Trouble with bad guys is, they can never admit when they are wrong. More importantly, the can never conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong. That always leads to thier doom Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 07:01:20 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 07:01:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Career and Other Wizarding Schools In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021226115106.05e872a0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48854 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James P. Robinson III" JIM wrote: > When HRH first meet Lupin on the Hogwarts Express, Hermione > identifies him (he is sleeping) as "Professor R. J. Lupin" by > reading that inscription off his battered, old case. Since the > case is not new (and indeed is made to sound quite old), Lupin > was a "Professor" before he got the DADA job at Hogwarts. > > ...edited... > > Admittedly, this could have been an informal school or a > pre-Hogwarts Wizard elementary school or another Wizard school > for children above 11 who could not go to Hogwarts, but it does > point to some sort of extra-Hogwarts educational track, IMHO. > > Jim bboy_mn doing his best Gilderoy Lockhart impression: Can you all see me? .... Can you all hear me? ... excellent ... For complete details see my published works. In this case, Post# 47114 & 48374 ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/47148 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/48374 ...on the subject of Howarts and post-Hogwarts wizard education. Summary, I believe advanced academic degrees are handled in independant study by the private sector. For example, the Confederation of Wizards or the Fraternal Order of Wizards (I made that one up) have academic review commitees that investigate and approve academic achievement, research, published papers, etc... and upon reaching an acceptable level of knowledge, they will grant you a degree and title. I believe that is what Lupin did. Being shunned by society, he had a lot of time alone, and spend that time educating himself, and even gathering personal experience and perhaps doing private research until he was able to demonstrate to some review body that he had sufficient knowledge to be granted a "Professoriate". As far as teachers being called 'Professor'; remember that not all teaches are called Professor. Madam Hooch is not called professor. Hagrid is not called Professor. OR.... He was so happy about getting the job at hogwarts, he enchanted his name in gold letters on his tattered old case. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 27 08:34:57 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 03:34:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS irrelevant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48855 I reread CoS this evening.... In it, I was reminded of an issue that shows itself in book 3-4 and that I feel certain will reappear to the end of the series of books. This issue can be seen in the chapter "Mudbloods and Murmurs"... I am not sure that this has been fully discussed, and if it has I give my apologies... The word "Mudblood" and theories behind it are very much the same as ANY purist thought condition in modern society. I began to think tonight of the many parallels of the thought behind "Mudbloods" and that of everything from religious persecution to racism in our society. The theories behind each work so well with world history. It occurred to me.... Voldemort is a Hitler figure. Pure blood is the majour issue. CoS is certainly relevant, other than the points already made by this point. Voldemort is a Hitler-esque figure. He desires power, he wants to wipe out those who are not of pure blood, etc. His tactics- torture, mass murder, and so on, his ideas, his mature... he is a WW Hitler, and CoS sets us up for what JKR has called, "many, many deaths to come in the following books". (of course this theory can be applied to most any culture/belief structure.. Hitler is a universal figure to prove a point) Thoughts? -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kewiromeo at aol.com Fri Dec 27 08:07:58 2002 From: kewiromeo at aol.com (kewiromeo at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 03:07:58 EST Subject: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48856 HPL: Encyclopedia of Spells states for the "killing" curse as this for a 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). For a little insight into magic I would like to state that one of the first spells to come into play was "Abracadabra" which for anyone who knows hebrew can simply be translated as "Abra" = create "cadabra" = like I speak. Just a little insight into one of the simplest spells. This is my first time posting, so I hope you all go easy on me. I will appreciate any insight further into my ideas. Second on my list is the ending of GoF. Krum had given a last, private, farewell to Hermione. My belief is that he had either noticed that Ron was in love with her, which I doubt as he will have noticed since Ron didn't say a word to him the whole year, but it is always a possibility. I believe that JKR had said that Hermione and Harry would not end up together, however I believe that Krum that told her that Harry would need her more than he would. He noticed that she cares about him more than anything and therefor putting his own feelings aside. This is why I believe she kissed him at the end of the book. And third on my list is belief that only Slytherin witches and wizards went bad. Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin. This would mean that Wormtail had been from Slytherin or a turncoat against the Gryffindor friends. If not, this would mean that Remus, James, and Sirius were friends with a Slytherin. So you can't rule out only Slytherins as being bad. This brings me to my next question. We are all pretty sure that Hermione will be made prefect. Are there only one prefect per year? However, we all know Harry is always special. Does this mean that he won't be made prefect? We know that James and Lily were head boy and head girl, and I would assume that they were both in Gryffindor and the lexicon says that they were in the same year. Either they were made prefects at the same time or there is another prefect for each year consecutively i.e. there would be a prefect for every year past 4th for each year. I have many more questions, but I will leave them for a later time. Tzvi of Brooklyn From Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com Fri Dec 27 04:12:35 2002 From: Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com (blind_nil_date ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 04:12:35 -0000 Subject: 2 nagging questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48857 I have been pondering 2 questions and would like any input from readers. 1 - Since Valdemort is not a pure-blood (witch mother and muggle father), why do people like Lucius Malfoy have anything to do with him? 2 - Now that Harry, Dumbledore, and the group from the hospital wing after the 3rd task now the truth, how do you think it will affect the students at school whom Harry saw their Death Eater parents in the cemetery? Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle could possibly undermine anything positive at Hogwarts, right? Of course I have tons of other questions, but I'd appreciate any contribution on these two. Thanks. --blind_nil_date From Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com Fri Dec 27 04:18:19 2002 From: Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com (blind_nil_date ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 04:18:19 -0000 Subject: Fidelius (WAS Re: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48858 > Corinth wrote: > > > So could Fidelius really be used to protect Harry at the Dursleys? What would the secret information be? As others have mentioned, it certainly isn't his identity; too many people recognize him. I doubt it would be his location. If it were, wouldn't that mean that no one could ever find him? From Flitwick's description, the charm seems to keep the information from absolutely everyone except the secret > keeper. But hundreds of people know Harry's location when he's at > school, and many more know where the Dursleys live (whether they have ever been there or not). Fred, George, Ron, and Mr.Weasely have both been to that house and seen Harry in it. > > So the secret isn't Harry's identity or location. I can't seem to > attribute Harry's protection at the Dursleys to the Fidelius Charm. > Although perhaps the charm is protecting something else about Harry... >>>>>>>>> I haven't read any previous threads, if any, to this, so I apologize if I'm jumping in midstream. I don't think that there is a Fidelius charm protecting Harry at the Dursleys. I think that there is some other ancient magic protecting him there. Is the Fidelius Charm ancient? I do not know. However, In GoF, Voldemort seems to accept two facts; Harry is in the care of his relations and he [Voldemort] can not harm him there. The mere mention that he can not harm him there, to me, suggests that it is something else that is protecting Harry at the Dursley's. --blind_nil_date From suzloua at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 11:59:41 2002 From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:59:41 -0000 Subject: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house References: <1040817052.1654.6803.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48859 > In a message dated 25/12/2002 04:40:19 Eastern Standard Time, > noir_l at yahoo.com writes: > > > > "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) " > > wrote: > > I can do no better than to quote Steve bboy_mn: "Just one problem, > > Harry's wearabouts is not a secret. ... So, there couldn't be a > > secret keeper because it's obviously wasn't kept secret." > > > > > > Everybody knows he is at Hogwarts. But does everybody know about where he > > spends his summers at the Dursley's? Some people know but there is no > > evidence that the wizarding world knows about the Dursleys and that that is > > the place where Harry stays for the summer. Voldemort could easily kill him > > there, so he would need a secret keeper to hide him while he was there. > > Besides, a secret keeper just hides the appearance of a person--they become > > invisible to the person seeking them out unless the secret keeper gives > > them away. In the book it said that Voldemort could be looking right in the > > window and never see him. He is safe at Hogwarts but the Dursley house > > needs some protection too especially when Harry is there. > Moi: People might not know the names of the Dursleys, but they definitely know Harry lives with them, and not just Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore etc. In CoS, someone (memory eludes me and book has disappeared somewhere) says either to Harry or he overhears - oh, actually, it's coming back. I think it's Ernie MacMillan and he says to Harry when Harry finds them in the library talking about him, "But don't you hate those Muggles you live with?" or something along those lines. Therefore, people must know he lives with Muggles beyond his immediate circle, if a casual friend like Ernie knows. I would imagine one of Hermione's books has information about Harry in it, and finishes with "Young Harry now lives with the Muggle family of his mother." etc - not giving away the names or locations of the Dursleys, but giving the famous Harry Potter lovin crowd a bit more info on their favourite boy. > which brings up another question- How did random wizards and witches identify > Harry unless someone in the WW was providing information? > I would imagine another thing in Hermione's books on Harry (Hermione seems to be a bit of a stalker if I have my way, lol) would be the fact that Voldemort's AK left a cut on Harry's forehead that became a scar exactly the shape of a lightening bolt. After all, Ron knew he had it, didn't he? Susan grinning as she realises another month is nearly over, and OotP is one month closer From nobradors at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 13:35:31 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:35:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48860 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, silveroak_us wrote: >sharana wrote at great length and > eloquently concerning a theory that Lupin died along with Lily and > that James is now masquerading. > > Small, teensy, itsy-bitsy problem, IMHO... > > During the confrontation between Voldemort and Harry near the end of > the fourth book, Voldemort's wand shows its previous spells. These > include the deaths of Cedric, Lily, and James(!) This would > constitute pretty strong proof that James died when Lily did. > (I will gloss over the apparent inconsistency in some editions of the > fourth book concerning the order of Lily's and James's deaths) > > ** Martin Miggs, the Mad Muggle ** Though I have to congratulate Sharana for her well-documented theory, I side with Silveroak's objection, and add one more: JKR has said in interviews that Lily and James are positively dead. I don't think that statement could be a red herring, as I don't recall her blatantly lying regarding what will happen in the books. If she's asked something crucial, she answers "I can't tell" or "you'll have to read the next book", she doesn't go "Harry will die in book 5" so then you'll be surprised when he doesn't. Well, at least we *hope* he doesn't, or book 6 will be called Ron Weasley and the Harry Potter Funeral. BTW, Where are you from, Sharana? Spanish is my mother tongue too (I'm from Argentina) Cheers, Nuri From jonmayes at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 14:22:34 2002 From: jonmayes at hotmail.com (jcminjapan ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:22:34 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat Ritual..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48861 Well, I thing that I read somewhere that we will find out how people are sorted... Well, here is my idea about the controversy of where Harry and even Hermione as well were placed. I feel that the sorting hat takes the persons values, ideals etc and puts them together with their wishes and then places them where they will best be trained to become their full potential. Here is my reasoning...... Hermione should actually be a Ravenclaw if you look at just her ideals and values. Think about it, in the beginning she had the ideals basically of the Ravenclaw. But, she wanted to be put in Gryfindor and she was. I think that it is our choice, but not completely. I think if she wanted to be in hufflepuff, she would not have been placed there. Basically, because I do not think that Hermione has the traits of a true Hufflepuff and being sorted into that house would do her no good. Also, I think that the sorting hat did not place her in Ravenclaw due to the fact that we was basically a Ravenclaw ideally already and she would leave Hogwarts the same as when she left. You can see now that her bravery and other Gryfindor ideals are starting to come out. Therefore becoming her full potential. Now on to Harry.... I think that Harry would have made a great Slytherin as well. I think that most people have a bad idea about the house of slytherin and not ALL slytherin students are going to be future DeathEaters. Just as I do not think that all Gryfindors are ideal people, I am sure that some have become DeathEaters as well. I think that in book one that was just a generalization that all slytherin were bad. I think that Harry actually would improve in both houses and that is truly why the sorting hat had a hard time. But, Harry truly believed that he was more of a Gryfindor than a slytherin. So, in this was Harry was sort of able to choose where he wanted to go. Basically either house would help him and it was more of a 50-50 and neither house would help him more or less than the other. Now Draco... Draco`s family have all been in Slytherin and Draco had the characteristics of slytherin and none of the other houses would help him and Draco only wanted to be in Slytherin. So, the sorting hat had an easy time placing him. Well, just my idea...... any thoughts? Jon From urbana at charter.net Fri Dec 27 16:02:08 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:02:08 -0000 Subject: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kewiromeo at a... wrote: > And third on my list is belief that only Slytherin witches and wizards went > bad. Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that > wasn't from Slytherin. This would mean that Wormtail had been from Slytherin > or a turncoat against the Gryffindor friends. If not, this would mean that > Remus, James, and Sirius were friends with a Slytherin. So you can't rule out > only Slytherins as being bad. > It was Ron who said, "Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin." There are some double negatives piled up in this sentence (which I hope comes from Ron being 11 years old, since I know JKR elucidates things much better than this) but that certainly does sound like "every witch or wizard who went bad *was* from Slytherin." However, remember that at the time Ron said this, NO ONE in the Wizarding World knew that Peter Pettigrew had actually faked his own death and framed Sirius Black for the murder of the group of Muggles. The mass-murder of the Muggles and Pettigrew's "death" were widely known in the WW, and as far as Ron knew, Scabbers was really a rat, not Peter Pettigrew, animagus, in rat form. So as far as everyone knew *at that point* (September 1, 1991 if you follow the HP timeline), no wizards or witches from any houses other than Slyterin had gone bad. Does this make sense? I hope so. As far as I can see, there's no real evidence in canon (at least through GoF) that Peter was in Slytherin, so he actually could have been the first Gryffindor (if he was a Gryffindor) to "go bad". Anne U (who would say "That's my story and I'm sticking to it"... except that Steve already says that;-) From melclaros at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 16:25:39 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:25:39 -0000 Subject: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kewiromeo at a... wrote: > > And third on my list is belief that only Slytherin witches and > wizards went > > bad. Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went > bad that > > wasn't from Slytherin. This would mean that Wormtail had been from > Slytherin > > or a turncoat against the Gryffindor friends. If not, this would > mean that > > Remus, James, and Sirius were friends with a Slytherin. So you > can't rule out > > only Slytherins as being bad. > > > > It was Ron who said, "Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or > wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin." There are some > double negatives piled up in this sentence (which I hope comes from > Ron being 11 years old, since I know JKR elucidates things much > better than this) but that certainly does sound like "every witch or > wizard who went bad *was* from Slytherin." However, remember that at > the time Ron said this, NO ONE in the Wizarding World knew that Peter > Pettigrew had actually faked his own death and framed Sirius Black > for the murder of the group of Muggles. The mass-murder of the > Muggles and Pettigrew's "death" were widely known in the WW, and as > far as Ron knew, Scabbers was really a rat, not Peter Pettigrew, > animagus, in rat form. So as far as everyone knew *at that point* > (September 1, 1991 if you follow the HP timeline), no wizards or > witches from any houses other than Slyterin had gone bad. Does this > make sense? I hope so. As far as I can see, there's no real evidence > in canon (at least through GoF) that Peter was in Slytherin, so he > actually could have been the first Gryffindor (if he was a > Gryffindor) to "go bad". > > Anne U > (who would say "That's my story and I'm sticking to it"... except > that Steve already says that;-) People keep using this to point to Pettigrew as a possible Slyth, but, at the time that was said in PS/SS, Sirius was considered to be a "wizard who went bad". If anyone's going to use that line of Ron's as canon for the 'truth' about Slytherins' characters, doesn't that HAVE to mean that Sirius was a Slyth? Now that might explain a lot of why Severus hates him so much, house loyalty--how could you turn your back on US and hang around with a bunch of Gryffindors? But I really think this was just a kid repeating something he overheard somewhere *and* probably getting it wrong. Melpomene From melclaros at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 16:35:54 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:35:54 -0000 Subject: Underage wizards and magic use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: > There are some who have the theory that it was prophesized that a boy > born in Harry birth year would lead to the defeat of Voldemort. So, > Voldie told all this Death Eaters to go out and make baby boys in the > off chance that one of them would be the 'savior' or 'destroyer' > depending on how you look at it. Perhaps if it was the son of a Death > Eater, Voldie could persuade him to join the dark side. There is a > similar event in the Bible, but I can't tell you what or where. > Similar? Hardly. You must be thinking about King Herod, who upon learning from the MAGI (the astrologers who read the signs and followed 'the star') of the birth of Christ, sent out his soldiers to Massacre every male child under age 2. Even Voldemort didn't think of that. Maybe he should have. It would have saved him a LOT of trouble. Although seeing as many of his most trusted followers had boy babes in arms it might not have gone over quite as well. Melpomene From nj13guy at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 14:27:24 2002 From: nj13guy at yahoo.com (Potter Hermione forever ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:27:24 -0000 Subject: 2 nagging questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48865 blind_nil_date wrote: > I have been pondering 2 questions and would like any input from > readers. > > 1 - Since Valdemort is not a pure-blood (witch mother and muggle > father), why do people like Lucius Malfoy have anything to do with > him? > Duh? One Word. POWER. Voldemort may not be a pure blood, but he is the only one who can fulfill the darkest desires of the Death-eaters. Ironic, isn't it? :-) > 2 - Now that Harry, Dumbledore, and the group from the hospital wing > after the 3rd task now the truth, how do you think it will affect > the students at school whom Harry saw their Death Eater parents in > the cemetery? > --blind_nil_date Who will believe Harry except D'dore & Company? He has no proof of that. Minister of Magic Fudge made sure of that. I think Fudge is in league with Voldemort. That is why he had Criouch Jr. disposed off. So that he would not be able to spill the beans on Voldemort & his Death Eaters. Remember the strange & almost happy gleam in Fudge's eye when Harry told him Voldemort had returned at the end of GoF in teh chapter 'Parting of the Ways'? "Potter Hermione forever" From nj13guy at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 14:37:50 2002 From: nj13guy at yahoo.com (Potter Hermione forever ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:37:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48866 > I believe that before the night Voldemort was defeated, Remus and > James switched bodies without telling anyone (except Lily) and that > it was Remus who died, not James. James lives in Remus's body. > > sharana It seems like a pretty amazing theory. :-) But, I am not sure how plausible it is ! Switching bodies? You mean they switch their souls? This is pretty deep. When James's echo comes out of Voldemort's wand at the end of GoF, he did not seem to say any such thing. I mean If he were Remus, he would have said so. Echos are not supposed to lie. Or do they? The idea of one or both of harry's parents being alive does seem very sweet, but I have not seen any concrete evidence which points to that way till now. The only pointer can be Harry imagining seeing his father in CoS. But, that was quickly cleared as he seeing himself in the past! Or was it? I hope JKR releases Book 5 pretty soon. I am going craZy with all these theories here. But, it is a cool idea. I hope JKR makes it come true. 'Potter Hermione Forever' From crazytortilla79 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 14:38:28 2002 From: crazytortilla79 at yahoo.com (crazytortilla79 ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:38:28 -0000 Subject: 2 nagging questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "blind_nil_date " wrote: > 1 - Since Valdemort is not a pure-blood (witch mother and muggle > father), why do people like Lucius Malfoy have anything to do with > him? > > 2 - Now that Harry, Dumbledore, and the group from the hospital wing > after the 3rd task now the truth, how do you think it will affect > the students at school whom Harry saw their Death Eater parents in > the cemetery? Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle could possibly undermine > anything positive at Hogwarts, right? > > Hmm, good questions. 1- I think in COS (don't have books on me) that Dumbledore says that not many people knew Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, therefore would not know his heritage. Lucius knew since he gave Ginny the diary, but the other DE's found out at the graveyard in GOF. By then it didn't matter since he was just plain evil anyway. They all had the same hatred, and I think that kind of sheer evil makes strange allies. 2-Uhmm, Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle just seem to be nuisances so far. I don't think they have the intelligence to do anything more or try to undermine anyone. Malfoy and co will probably just get more annoying with future books --trying to knock Harry off his broom at Quidditch matches, following the trio around..etc. Well, that is just what I think, anwyay. crazytortilla From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 17:00:43 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:00:43 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Voldemort and DE Children (WAS: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48868 blind_nil_date asked: > 1 - Since Voldemort is not a pure-blood (witch mother and muggle > father), why do people like Lucius Malfoy have anything to do with > him? Now me: For the power. Voldemort has power, Lucius wants power, Lucius is smart enough to realize that if he affiliates himself with a powerful wizard like Voldemort, he can gain the power he's seeking. JKR, in a BBC 2000 interview (http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/text.htm), when asked about Voldemort being a half-blood, responded: "Like Hitler! See! I think it's the case that the biggest bully takes their own defects and they put them on someone else, and they try to destroy them. And that's what he [Voldemort] does." Voldemort has so successfully redirected the hate and prejudice of the DEs toward non pure-blood wizards that Lucius and the DEs probably don't even think of him as a half-blood. blind_nil_date again: > 2 - Now that Harry, Dumbledore, and the group from the hospital > wing after the 3rd task now the truth, how do you think it will > affect the students at school whom Harry saw their Death Eater > parents in the cemetery? Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle could possibly > undermine anything positive at Hogwarts, right? Me again: Cornelius Fudge either doesn't believe, or is pretending not to believe, that Harry met Voldemort and the DEs in the graveyard at the end of GoF. So while only OoP will tell us for sure, my guess is that Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle will also not believe, or pretend not to believe, that Harry saw their fathers as DEs. ~Phyllis From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 17:55:57 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:55:57 +0000 Subject: (FILK) Death Day Party Invitation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48869 Death Day Party Invitation (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite!_ by the Beatles) I got the Sergeant Pepper's album on CD for Christmas! Dedicated to CMC Sing along to the Midi here: http://wsp3.wspice.com/~dpannell/beatles/Welcome.html To honor Nearly Headless Nick There will be a horrific Death Day Party October Thirty-first's the date Please do come and celebrate this tragedy He was hit in the neck forty-five times With a blunt axe five hundred years ago That's the way he passed away so Nicholas says The late lamented N.H.N. Invites every ghost to attend, and every ghoul The party will start at seven Deep down inside the dark dungeons of Hogwarts School They'll be music, dancing and a buffet Of the most putrid food money can buy If you please, R.S.V.P. as soon as you can Invitations have been send The Wailing Widow will come from Kent, if we're lucky And we expect quite a thrill As the Headless Hunt will show their skill at Head Hockey Having been some days in preparation A mournful time is guaranteed for all As a topper, Harry Potter's guest of honor -Gail B...who is slowly (although reluctantly) replacing her L.P.s with CDs. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf From kaityf at jorsm.com Fri Dec 27 16:36:35 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:36:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 2 nagging questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021227102013.03109230@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48870 blind_nil_date wrote: >1 - Since Valdemort is not a pure-blood (witch mother and muggle >father), why do people like Lucius Malfoy have anything to do with >him? From what I remember, Dumbledore tells Harry that very few people knew that Voldemort's real name was Tom Riddle. Very few knew what his real background was. Now that you mention it though, Harry found this out in CoS, yet it never comes up again. That is, I can't remember any instance in any subsequent book where the real identity of Voldemort is revealed to the general population of the WW or even the students at Hogwarts. In any case, Nazis had no problem following Hitler, who it is believed was not a pure-blood Ayrian. They had no problem following any of their leaders that were not pureblood, not until the end, if I remember my history correctly. (Anyone may feel free to correct me on this.) The point is that it is the message that people attach themselves to, not strictly the messenger. If the messenger is charismatic, so much the better. >2 - Now that Harry, Dumbledore, and the group from the hospital wing >after the 3rd task now the truth, how do you think it will affect >the students at school whom Harry saw their Death Eater parents in >the cemetery? Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle could possibly undermine >anything positive at Hogwarts, right? I've wondered about this too, from the time I first read the names of those Harry saw in the graveyard. I've been anxiously awaiting book 5 in part for that very reason. How WILL it affect the students? Of course, if it is handled the same way Voldemort's real identity is handled, then it may not go beyond those who already know at the end of GoF. The trio has long suspected the parents of Malfoy and his cohorts as having links to Voldemort, or at least they've said they wouldn't be surprised to learn that. Not everyone that heard what Harry had to say believed him either. Fudge certainly didn't. Serius isn't going to tell anyone. Snape no doubt already knew and hadn't done anything about it before or treated anyone differently because of that knowledge. (In fact, he treated Draco better than he treated Harry.) My guess at this point is that little will change. After all, there is no concrete proof that Harry can offer, which is precisely why Fudge refuses to believe Harry (besides the fact that he is no doubt in denial over Voldemort's return). Perhaps the trio will be looking for such concrete evidence in book 5. Without it they can say much about it in the same way they can't say much about Serius even though they know the truth (as does Dumbledore) because they have no proof of his innocence. From heidit at netbox.com Fri Dec 27 18:25:28 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:25:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 2 nagging questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021227102013.03109230@mailhost.jorsm.com> Message-ID: <00d101c2add5$6dd3c6b0$0301a8c0@Frodo> No: HPFGUIDX 48871 > -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Bainbridge [mailto:kaityf at jorsm.com] > The > trio has long > suspected the parents of Malfoy and his cohorts as having links to > Voldemort, or at least they've said they wouldn't be > surprised to learn > that. Not everyone that heard what Harry had to say believed him > either. Fudge certainly didn't. Serius isn't going to tell > anyone. Snape > no doubt already knew and hadn't done anything about it > before or treated > anyone differently because of that knowledge. (In fact, he > treated Draco > better than he treated Harry.) Actually, this leads to an interesting point. Snape made a sudden movement when Harry spoke Lucius' name as one of the Death Eaters at the graveyard, which at least gives the implication that Snape believed whatever story Lucius told when he was suspected before, back when he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Here's the bit from GoF that I'm refering to: <> In other words, Snape didn't necessarily already know that Lucius was an active Death Eater, or that he'd be at Voldemort's side as soon as he did come back. However, on the issue of why he treats Draco better than he treats Harry (excepting, of course, the simple reason which is that he still hates James and can't take his hatred out on James so he does it vicariously on Harry) there are a number of possible reasons why he does that - he's reported as favoring his own house in the first place, but it's also possible that he sees Lucius as being less-than-a-good-role-model to Draco, that he doesn't want Draco to make the same mistakes he (Snape) did (i.e. joining the Death Eaters and putting his life at risk for that), or that he's trying to get information out of Draco about Lucius' activities, just to keep tabs on what's going on outside Hogwarts. Heidi Join me at Nimbus - 2003 The first international Harry Potter symposium http://www.hp2003.org From kaityf at jorsm.com Fri Dec 27 19:12:59 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:12:59 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: moscow times In-Reply-To: References: <194.1285fe22.2b3cbcde@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021227103922.03171658@mailhost.jorsm.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48872 About an investigation into the popular Harry Potter books after an Orthodox believer lodged a complaint that they discredit Christianity, srsiriusblack wrote: >Snuffles, wondering what other people think about this kind of rubbish grindieloe replied: > Well Snuffles, I think you've said it all... it's simply >rubbish. Anyone who has read any of the Potter books must be able to >see the deep rooted moral issues that penetrate each of them. JKR has been asked about this sort of thing numerous times. Her reply to this question on an interview on the Today Show was this: "A very famous writer once said, 'A book is like a mirror. If a fool looks in, you can't expect a genius to look out.'" That's my favorite response to that criticism and sums it all up quite nicely, I think. From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 19:37:04 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:37:04 -0000 Subject: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48873 Anne:"It was Ron who said, "Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin." Hagrid said pretty much the same thing, but I don't think in either case that makes it infallible. Characters, like real people, don't say things precisely and aren't necessarily right. It's only when the "narrator" says something that we need to take it as read. But what does this say about wizard attitutdes towards the Slytherins? Dean Thomas(was it him?) says the same thing in CoS and suggests the Slytherins should all be tossed out. Also, if Ron is speaking completely literally, then Sirius must have been a Slytherin, for Ron surely knows about him. I have a hard time believing Sirius was a Slytherin. It sure seems like the majority of baddies are Slytherins, but I don't think if we run into a bad guy he must be a Slytherin. From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 19:56:41 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:56:41 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48874 Steve wrote: > So while they can't curse each other in this one simultaneous curse > circumstances, they can curse each other. Voldie cursed Harry > several times in the graveyard. When Voldie cursed Harry, it was > wand against wizard, only when they cursed simultaneously was it > wand against wand. Admittedly, it is the power of the wizards > backing up the wands. Now me: Since the wand has to "meet its brother" in order for the wands to "not work properly against each other," both wizards must be using their wands at or about the same time. I don't think this means that the curses have to be simultaneous, or collide in mid-air, but both wizards do need to be actively using their wands. As you said, when Voldemort cursed Harry in the graveyard, Harry wasn't using his wand. Steve (bboy_mn) again: > I think the duel between Malfoy and Harry where the curses collided > and ricocheted off each other was the setup for this. It made us > aware the this simultaneous curses was an unusual circumstance. Now me: When Harry and Malfoy's curses collided, Harry's furnunculus curse ricocheted to hit Goyle, and Malfoy's densaugeo curse ricocheted to hit Hermione. Both curses were successful ? Goyle wound up with boils on his nose, and Hermione wound up with elongated teeth. In priori incantatem, the curses are ineffective ? Harry's expelliarmus didn't wind up disarming a nearby Death Eater, and Voldemort's avada kedavra didn't wind up killing a nearby DE (if it could only have been Lucius!). So I see the two simultaneous curse situations as being very different from one another. Potter Hermione forever asked: > So, Can an owner just change his wand without some negative side > effects? Didn't Mr. Ollivander say that each wand is unique to his > owner? So, he must have given the best possible wand to Voldemort. > Thus, Voldemort can't possibly get a better wand now? (or can he?) Me again: Actually, I think this is the beauty of it all ? Voldemort will think he needs to obtain a different wand since he now knows his wand will be ineffective against Harry, but he'll never be able to find another wand that will work as well for him as his original wand. In PS/SS, Mr. Ollivander tells Harry "you will never get such good results with another wizard's wand" and speaks of finding "the perfect match" and of Harry being "destined" for his wand. This suggests to me that if Voldemort does get himself a different wand, it may wind up weakening his abilities. ~Phyllis From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 20:19:36 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:19:36 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James - time travel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48875 Nuri wrote: > Sharana wrote at great length and eloquently concerning a theory > that Lupin died along with Lily and that James is now > masquerading. > > JKR has said in interviews that Lily and James are positively > dead. Me: I have been looking all over the Internet for transcripts of JKR's interviews, but I haven't found anything stating that Harry's parents are positively dead. Could you (or someone) please point me to the correct link where she says this? I'd like to read it. Thank you. (I've already searched aberforthsgoat.net, the Lexicon and other places and couldn't find anything about it) Nuri also wrote: > BTW, Where are you from, Sharana? Spanish is my mother tongue too > (I'm from Argentina) Me: I'm from Venezuela :-) nj13guy Wrote: > Wouldn't he (fakeremus) know about Sirius' innocence and Peter's > guilt before this episode if he was really James? > James would be the one doing the secret-keeper switching, wouldn't > he, or at least have a say in it? Even Dumbledore says that he > offered to be the Potter's secret keeper, but James insisted that > it be Sirius. That leads me to believe that James & Lily would be > making that decision, thus knowing that Peter was the spy. Me: No, I believe the switching of bodies took place BEFORE the Fidelius Charm, and the only people who knew at that moment about the switching of bodies were Lily, James and Remus. Then in PoA page 365 Sirius tells Harry that he persuaded Lily and James to change to Peter (as Secret Keeper) at "he last moment". By this time Remus and James would have switched bodies and Sirius thought he was speaking to James (he was speaking to Remus instead). RealJames (in Lupin's body) was not present at the time the Fidelius Charm was cast so he could not know about the change in the Secret Keeper. Only 4 people new of the CHANGE in the Secret Keeper: Lily (dead), Peter (that Rat!), Sirius (sent to Azkaban, who would believe him?) and FakeJames (Remus in James body) On PoA: Ch.18 Page 351 "Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter," said Lupin, nodding. "I believed it myself - until I saw the map tonight. Because the Marauder's Map never lies...Peter's alive. Ron's holding him, Harry". Lupin (RealJames) is realizing (at this point) that Peter is alive and he questions himself as to why Peter, if he was innocent, hasn't shown himself before. He then realizes Peter is hiding because he is guilty of something really big, he concludes that Sirius and Peter changed places without telling him, and Sirius confirms it in a scene I explained in my first post. This is the order of events that make it possible (by what we see in canon) to explain my theory of James being alive in Lupin's body and still keeping it a secret. nj13guy wrote: > Sharana wrote: > >On the other hand, Dumbledore trusts Hagrid completely (trusted >Hagrid to deliver Harry to Privet Drive when he was a baby). But as >Hagrid said at the Three Broomsticks (Ch 10, Page 206), he didn't >know that Sirius had been Lily and James Secret-Keeper. Why then >would Lupin be told at that time about the Secret-Keeper stuff? >It's supposed to be kept secret. Other than Dumbledore (who >suggested the use of this spell), no one else should know about it, >including Lupin. > >me: > >My impression would be that Lupin didn't know about it at the time, >but the story of Sirius' & Peter's confrontation in the street >afterwards is very well known, thus Lupin would know about it now >even if he didn't then. Me: Yes, Lupin would know about Sirius and Peter's confrontation but would believe, as everybody else that Sirius was guilty. Remember only 4 people new about the CHANGE of the Secret Keeper, after the confrontation of Sirius and Peter most people would know that the Fidelius Charm was cast, but only 4 new of the change of the Secret Keeper. Everyone else thought that the Secret Keeper was actually Sirius which was way he was sent to Azkaban. nj13guy wrote: > It seems like a pretty amazing theory. :-) > But, I am not sure how plausible it is ! > This is pretty deep. Me: I know, I understand it's hard to believe in. :-) nj13guy wrote: > When James's echo comes out of Voldemort's wand at the end of GoF, > he did not seem to say any such thing. I mean If he were Remus, he > would have said so. Echos are not supposed to lie. Or do they? Me: Not necessarily. Up to now we don't know (by canon) nothing more about these echoes other than what Dumbledore told Harry, which is pretty vague. Echoes could lie. Imagine what would happen if while Harry is trying to concentrate hard on the connection of wands, he finds out his father is alive (in Lupin's body) and that he actually met him and spent time with him. Harry would be so shocked that he would break the connection of the wands (at least), and that would be a catastrophe, probably could kill him. Why? Because, the shadows that regurgitated from Voldemort's wand were the reason Voldemort could be distracted enough time to let Harry run, grab Cedric's body and touch the Goblet which transported him safely back to Hogwarts. If the connection of the wands broke before all the shadows regurgitated, Harry would be in a much worse position, Voldemort could attack again. As I said before, the echoes have some level of conscience of what is going on in the living world, they even communicate between themselves, Bertha knew Harry's name (although that could have another explanation). nj13guy wrote: > The idea of one or both of Harry's parents being alive does seem > very sweet, but I have not seen any concrete evidence which points > to that way till now. Me: You are absolutely right about the lack of concrete evidence, but there is no concrete evidence of the contrary either (up to now). Lily IS really dead, her sacrifice gave Harry extra protection, but you don't hear something like that about James. And yes, it would be very sweet :-) nj13guy wrote: > I hope JKR releases Book 5 pretty soon. I am going craZy with all > these theories here. But, it is a cool idea. I hope JKR makes it > come true. Me too... (on both) Kristen wrote: >> Sharana: >> Back to Potterverse you say that the event that triggers the loop >> is the act of going back in time. Yes, but you have to be alive >> to go back in time. Harry is alive because a Patronus drove the >> Dementors away before the kiss. Even if he had received the kiss >> and goes back in time, he would not be able (being soulless) to >> cast the Patronus, so someone else must have done it (the first >> time), Harry later going back in time changed the fact on who >> cast the Patronus from that loop on, but he couldn't have cast it >> the first time. >> >Me: >Ok, I admit it, this time loop talk gives me a headache. Maybe I'm >being very dense here, but why couldn't it be Harry the first >time? If it had to be someone else, then who attended all of >Hermione's classes? Don't worry Kristen, time loop talk is really complicated, especially when you don't have graphics to aid you. I'll try to put it as simple as I can (which is probably a lot more complicated than I said before). First of all Hermione's classes is a different case than Harry casting the Patronus the first time. Why? Hermione goes back in time to attend to classes; she doesn't risk dying in doing so, unless you count exhaustion, ;-) Hermione's time loop concerning her classes: Let's say Classes 1, 2 and 3 are at the same hour (9 am), Classes 4 and 5 are both at 10 am. Each class is one hour long. That means she must cover 5 hours of classes from 9 to 11 am. (2 hour period) (See chart below ) She enters classes 1 (9 am) and 4 (10 am). She then establishes a time loop going back in time, she lives these hours again (Second time) only she attends classes 2 (9 am) and 5 (10 am). From her point of view she has been in class for 4 hours, but she still needs to cover Class 3 so she activates another loop and goes back a third time. While she is in class 3 (9 am), there are two other Hermione's around: Herm-1 which is in Class 1 and Herm-2 which is in class 2. By the end of class 3 she has been in class for 5 hours, (but she is the only one who went back in time, the rest of the kids only had 2 hours) she ended class 3 at 10 am, but the loop was established at 11 am, she still has to wait an hour to get out of the time loop, she probably hides to do some homework. That is why she gets so exhausted during PoA, she is awake and studying and attending classes for a lot more hours than everybody else, she does not rest enough. To her, the days do not last 24 hours long, they must last about 35 hours. Loops [Cls 1] [Cls 2] [Cls 3] [Cls 4] [Cls5] [BackInTime] 1stTime Herm-1 Herm-1 Herm-1 -> Herm-2 2ndTime Herm-2 Herm-2 Herm-2 -> Herm-3 3rdTime Herm-3 She doesn't Harry and Hermione's Time loop concerning the Patronus... Remember, the loop BEGINS the moment you go back in time the first time, NOT when the Patronus is cast. Harry is surrounded by Dementors, one of them kisses him, he now is soulless so he cannot go back in time to cast a Patronus. So someone else (X-Guy) goes back in time and casts the Patronus for him, which makes the Dementor retreat before he kisses Harry (Harry-1), Harry is OK and goes back in time with Hermione. Harry (Harry-2) decides he wants to see who cast the Patronus that saved Harry-1, he suddenly believes it was him so he has the confidence to do it and he does. X-Guy is near Harry-2 and was about to cast the Patronus, but Harry-2 didn't see him, X-Guy hides from the Harry-2 while Harry-2 casts the Patronus. The loop will continue with Harry casting the Patronus. He could not do it the first time because he was kissed, making him incapable of casting any spell. Loops [DemKiss] [PatCast] [DemRetreat] [Harry Back In Time] 1stTime Harry-1 No No 2ndTime Harry-1 X-Guy Yes Harry-1 -> Harry-2 3rdTime Harry-2 Harry-1 Yes Harry-2 -> Harry 3 And so on... OK, it got really complicated, just reread it and reread what I wrote before (slowly and carefully) and it will make sense. I hope!! If it doesn't, just forget it... Cheers... Sharana From heidit at netbox.com Fri Dec 27 20:33:29 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:33:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is James - time travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00fc01c2ade7$3843c010$0301a8c0@Frodo> No: HPFGUIDX 48876 > -----Original Message----- > From: sharana.geo > [mailto:sharana.geo at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 3:20 PM > To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is James - time travel > > > Real-To: "sharana.geo " > > > Nuri wrote: > > Sharana wrote at great length and eloquently concerning a theory > > that Lupin died along with Lily and that James is now > > masquerading. > > > > JKR has said in interviews that Lily and James are positively > > dead. > > Me: > I have been looking all over the Internet for transcripts of JKR's > interviews, but I haven't found anything stating that Harry's > parents are positively dead. Could you (or someone) please point me > to the correct link where she says this? I'd like to read it. Thank > you. (I've already searched aberforthsgoat.net, the Lexicon and > other places and couldn't find anything about it) I probably did a slightly different search than you did on The Goat Pen, and I found these quotes: She gets quite exercised if people tell her they think Harry's dead parents are going to come back to life at the end of book seven. "We've had petrified people, and we've had what would have been fatal injuries, but once you're dead you're dead. No magic power can resurrect a truly dead person." http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4037903,00.html Rowling: Harry has already dealt with death, of course. He lost his parents very young, in book four he witnessed a murder, which is a very disturbing thing. So this is not news to anybody who has been following the series, that death is a central theme of the books. But, yes, I think it would be fair to say that in book five he has to examine exactly what death means, in even closer ways. But I don't think people who have been following the series will be that surprised by that. http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/books/rowling_001023.html I think her statement that Harr "lost his parents very young" and "once you're dead you're dead" make it clear to some that she's saying that Harry's parents are positively dead and will not come back to life as living people. heidi From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 27 20:51:52 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:51:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Simple spell origin, Krum... and a Pettigrew Question Message-ID: <27.34e1d5ee.2b3e1768@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48877 In a message dated 27/12/2002 11:03:58 Eastern Standard Time, urbana at charter.net writes: > (September 1, 1991 if you follow the HP timeline), no wizards or > witches from any houses other than Slyterin had gone bad. Does this > make sense? I hope so. As far as I can see, there's no real evidence > in canon (at least through GoF) that Peter was in Slytherin, so he > actually could have been the first Gryffindor (if he was a > Gryffindor) to "go bad". IMHO, I think that the statement about Slytherins "There was not a witch a wizard..." is just an emphasis on how many people from Slytherin had gone to the Dark Side. I don't think it is a rule.. As Dumbledore explains our choices make us who we are. >From what I understand, Peter was Gryffindor. The Sorting Hat placed him there because of what was in his mind. It was how he chose to us his mind afterwards that made him the Wizard he was/is. When Harry questions his placement into Gryffindor House, Dumbledore stresses that Harry made a choice. The books in their entirity focus on choices. Harry makes decisions in the face of peril constantly. Again, I bring forth one of my favourite scenes- The Shrieking Shack- Harry has the opportunity to kill the man who has been blamed for his parents' deaths. A man who, before explaining why he believes he, Sirius, is responsible admits to causing the deaths, yet Harry chooses not to kill him. Again, with Peter Pettigrew, Harry has the choice. A lesser wizard, or someone without Harry's value for life, would have probably chosen their deaths. Would this have made him a bad wizard? Probably not, but the choices he makes form who he becomes. (Follow me? ) Peter, although like Gryffindor, chose to follow Voldemort for a desire to outshine his friends(?), for power(?), for greed(?) ( I put question marks because we don't really know all of his reasons) . He made the decisions. The Sorting Hat saw in him the qualities of a Gryffindor, but I don't think that it means that a person placed in a house will use those qualities for the work of goodness....But, rather he will use the qualities/strengths in his decisions which make him into the kind of wizard he will become/is. But, I do have a question.. Peter heard how Sirius escaped and how in animal form thoughts are simpler than humans.... So if he had gone to Azkaban, Sirius had, in a way, given him the formula for escape.... This makes me wonder if anyone thought Pettigrew was smart enough to use it or if they even thought that it was an issue??? -Snuffles, with the sniffles today "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 27 20:58:22 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:58:22 EST Subject: Hagrid's Wand. Message-ID: <155.1976b4b0.2b3e18ee@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48878 In PS/SS, Hargid says when he was expelled his wand was snapped in two. Why then, if his wand is in his pink umbrella ( sorry the image of the pink umbrella and Big "scary" Hagrid gives me a kick!) does it work fairly well? I know it can be said that he spells do not always go as plan, i.e. he meant to turn Dudley into a fully fledged pig, but when Ron's wand is broken- and mind it is still hanging on to itself not completely snapped- nothing works properly. So, shouldn't Hagrid's wand be a bit more of a trouble maker than it actually is? All in all, it seems to work pretty well for him, and certainly Spellotape couldn't fix it completely, could it? -Snuffles, still sniffling "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Fri Dec 27 22:19:54 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:19:54 EST Subject: Sirius the Slyth (was Re: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects) Message-ID: <119.1ccb7258.2b3e2c0a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48879 In a message dated 12/27/2002 2:38:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, jferer at yahoo.com writes: > Anne:"It was Ron who said, "Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or > wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin." > > Hagrid said pretty much the same thing, but I don't think in either > case that makes it infallible. Characters, like real people, don't > say things precisely and aren't necessarily right. It's only when the > "narrator" says something that we need to take it as read. This is true, and i am sure that there are many bad witches and Wizards from all the houses, it would make the most sense, especially with an influential dark wizzard like Voldie running around recruiting. However, i think there is a big inference that can be made from this statement. Sirius Black *must* have been in slytherin. There's no way both hagrid and ron would have made such an absolute statement, to the extent of 'all bad wizards were in slytherin,' with the glaring exception of Black. If black was in gryffindor, wouldn't they mention it? or at least add an 'almost' to it? Sirius was considered one of the most dangerous dark wizards of their time! It would be like one of us saying 'there weren't any mass murderurs who were women' with women like the 'angels of death' having so much coverage again lately (especially in reference to kavorkian) -scheherazade [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 22:28:00 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:28:00 -0000 Subject: Peter a Gryffindor? and Azkaban Escape Plan (WAS: a Pettigrew Question) In-Reply-To: <27.34e1d5ee.2b3e1768@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48880 Snuffles (srsiriusblack) wrote: > From what I understand, Peter was Gryffindor. Now me: IIRC, there is nowhere in canon that says that Pettigrew was in Gryffindor. It's a good theory, since we know James was in Gryffindor and he and Peter were friends at Hogwarts, but it's not a certainty. Snuffles again: > Peter heard how Sirius escaped and how in animal form thoughts are > simpler than humans.... So if he had gone to Azkaban, Sirius had, > in a way, given him the formula for escape.... This makes me wonder > if anyone thought Pettigrew was smart enough to use it or if they > even thought that it was an issue??? Now me: Sirius was able to get away with turning into a dog because no one knew he was an unregistered animagus and the Dementors couldn't see his transformations. Since Pettigrew has now been revealed as an unregistered animagus, if he had gone to Azkaban, presumably the Ministry would have put someone to guard him who would be able to see if he turned into a rat and would be able to do something to stop his escape. ~Phyllis hoping Snuffles' sniffles dry up soon From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Fri Dec 27 22:46:06 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:46:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius the Slyth -- Not. In-Reply-To: <119.1ccb7258.2b3e2c0a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021227224606.86494.qmail@web13005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48881 alicit at aol.com wrote: However, i think there is a big inference that can be made from this statement. Sirius Black *must* have been in slytherin. There's no way both hagrid and ron would have made such an absolute statement, to the extent of 'all bad wizards were in slytherin,' with the glaring exception of Black. If black was in gryffindor, wouldn't they mention it? or at least add an 'almost' to it? Sirius was considered one of the most dangerous dark wizards of their time! Me: In PoA, there is no indication that Ron knew anything about Sirius Black until he escaped from prison. Even Hermione, who reads constantly, didn't seem to have come across his name in a book; if she'd read about his betraying Harry's parents, let alone killing a street full of Muggles, she wouldn't have been just as surprised as the boys when she learned what happened. The trio learned of all that when they were eavesdropping on Rosmerta, Fudge and, IIRC, Hagrid, McGonagall and Flitwick at the Three Broomsticks. Given things his dad probably said about houses he'd raided, it's not surprising that Ron would get the impression that everyone evil came from Slytherin, without any particularly solid or specific evidence. As for Hagrid, he's not the clearest thinker at all times, is he? It was really rather easy for him to let slip to the "stranger" in the pub how to get past Fluffy, in the first book. No doubt he dwells quite often on the cause of his expulsion: Tom Riddle. (Could this be a reason for his drinking?) In that Riddle was responsible for his life basically being arrested after he was kicked out of school, I think Hagrid isn't going to see straight about this at all. Even though he betrayed the Potters, I think that compared to Riddle/Voldemort, Hagrid would consider Sirius to be a mere aberration. Not to mention that he'd have to think about the way he trusted Sirius himself, which is probably not the pleasantest of thoughts for Hagrid. Back when Hagrid made his statement, in the first book, Sirius Black was safely in prison and Hagrid probably hadn't thought of him for years. I think most statements by Hagrid need to be taken with a grain of salt, and this one is a big ole red herring that's really, really, really salty. ;) As far as I can see, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the four Marauders weren't all in Gryffindor. That's probably why the supposed betrayal of Sirius rankles so much--it didn't come from the quarter you'd expect. That's also why it's called a "betrayal." If he'd been a Slytherin, everyone would have simply said that it was no more than you could expect from one of THEM, and James and Lily should have known what he was to begin with... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 23:12:47 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:12:47 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Wand with a side ponder In-Reply-To: <155.1976b4b0.2b3e18ee@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48882 Snuffles wrote: (wasn't Snuffles also a dog on Sesame Street?) > In PS/SS, Hagrid says when he was expelled his wand was snapped in >two. Why then, if his wand is in his pink umbrella (sorry the image >of the pink umbrella and Big "scary" Hagrid gives me a kick!) does it >work fairly well? We have three *know* examples of when Hagrid has used his wand. Dudley's tail, the taps on boat to speed the boat along from the hut, and pumpkin growth. Also a hint that he used his wand possible to light/build that fire in the hut. Seems all these times, the spell hit on target and the intended spell had a result similar to what was expected. Unlike with Ron and his broken wand where the spells backfired, were misdirected, and were just menacing. So I suggest that Hagrid's wand is not in pieces in his umbrella. It was either never broken or they were "expertly" put back together. I mean Ron's did a rather piddly job in repairing his wand with that spellotape. Hagrid could of been more careful...well or had the sense to ask for help in repairing it, say help from Dumbledore. Oh and hey, at the end of Ch 5 in PS/SS it seems Hagrid apparated from the train terminal. You need a wand for that, so if his wand is indeed snapped in two, then wouldn't it be *very* dangerous for him to apparate? Wait - do you need a wand to apparate? Have we any proof of that? Maybe it is a skill learned like animagus that uses the wand initially but later does not require it directly. Hmmm... Another question arose from that chapter. We have Harry riding home to the Dursley's on a train, but how did he get from the train to their house? Seems there was no preparations for the Dursley's to met Harry there. Does "train" possibly mean "bus"? Sorry, way off topic from this Hagrid post but a question that popped up at me when I read that bit looking for Hagrid umbrella spell sightings. Now we learn also that he has the "pieces" in this umbrella. He told Ollivander, "I've still got the pieces, though." I wonder if he is telling the truth there. Seems he would be feeding the "his wand was snapped" lie to people for so long, he might actually believe it himself in passing comments. So, I don't think his saying this could actually mean it was in fact snapped. Or even that the pieces are still "pieces". Then it could be just a half-truth. He has the pieces but they were pieced back together well. We all discredit Hagrid on this site, so it is possible he is flustering his truths again. A lie hiding in a truth. I guess I believe that with the case of Dudley the pig, Hagrid's curse did not work because Hagrid was not strong enough to perform the spell. He blamed it on Dudley being so piglike, but really that is a normal guy thing to do when it is their fault (no offensive to the male population). The pumpkins worked nicely as did the little motorboat across the lake. So I think Hagrid can perform small third level magic spells but not much else since he was expelled after that. But then there is the apparent apparation in the terminal. Maybe, Hagrid had special tutorials on that spell because it could be so handy for Dumbledore's cause. Seems he would have the patience to teach Hagrid. Melody who is honored Caius dedicated a filk to her and hopes he found her full name rather amusing. Need less to say, my parents have an interesting sense of humor. :) From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 27 23:34:24 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:34:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid's Wand with a side ponder Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48883 In a message dated 27/12/2002 18:14:20 Eastern Standard Time, Malady579 at hotmail.com writes: > He told > Ollivander, "I've still got the pieces, though." I wonder if he is > telling the truth there. Seems he would be feeding the "his wand was > snapped" lie to people for so long, he might actually believe it > himself in passing comments. So, I don't think his saying this could > actually mean it was in fact snapped. Or even that the pieces are > still "pieces". Then it could be just a half-truth. He has the > pieces but they were pieced back together well. We all discredit > Hagrid on this site, so it is possible he is flustering his truths > again. A lie hiding in a truth. I, personally, don't think Hagrid really ever lies like this. Dumbledore says in PS that he would "trust Hagrid with his life". My personal opinion on Hagrid is that he always means well and when he has lied it seems to have been very difficult on him. He hates ever disappointing Dumbledore. Lying would be a disappointment, wouldn't it? It also makes sense that the wand would be snapped into pieces--- however, I could see Dumbledore "fixing it" for his own reasons-- because the MoM wouldn't want untrained witches and wizards about the place running amok with wands. So, the wand would be broken upon expulsion... The reason I think maybe Dumbledore could have "fixed" the wand is that Hagrid has permission from him to use some magic in the quest to pick up Harry and deliver him to Hogwarts. Perhaps Dumbledore think Hagrid should be allowed to use Magic to a certain extent and that useage is a secret between the two of them? Just throwing out some ideas... -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Fri Dec 27 23:38:46 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:38:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter a Gryffindor? and Azkaban Escape Plan (WAS: a Petti... Message-ID: <79.59c3011.2b3e3e86@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48884 In a message dated 27/12/2002 17:29:36 Eastern Standard Time, erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com writes: > Since Pettigrew has now been revealed as an > unregistered animagus, if he had gone to Azkaban, presumably the > Ministry would have put someone to guard him who would be able to see > if he turned into a rat and would be able to do something to stop his > escape. > I thought of this.... but what kind of person could withstand the life with Dementors to keep an eye out for the transformations? Or maybe there is a way to stop someone from being able to transform- some spell or curse or charm? ( The WW has a lot that we don't know ;) ) A rat would be a hard one to catch after the transformation- not impossible, but rats are small and quick.... So there would have to be some way to put a stopper in the transformations all together, wouldn't there? -Snuffles thanking Phyllis for wishing her sniffles to dry up ... anyone have a spell? ;) "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kristen at sanderson-web.com Sat Dec 28 00:44:11 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:44:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry (WAS: Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: <00d101c2add5$6dd3c6b0$0301a8c0@Frodo> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48885 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy" wrote: > "Malfoy was cleared!" said Fudge, visibly affronted. "A very old family > - donations to excellent causes -">> > > In other words, Snape didn't necessarily already know that Lucius was an > active Death Eater, or that he'd be at Voldemort's side as soon as he > did come back. > > However, on the issue of why he treats Draco better than he treats Harry > (excepting, of course, the simple reason which is that he still hates > James and can't take his hatred out on James so he does it vicariously > on Harry) there are a number of possible reasons why he does that - he's > reported as favoring his own house in the first place, but it's also > possible that he sees Lucius as being less-than-a-good-role-model to > Draco, that he doesn't want Draco to make the same mistakes he (Snape) > did (i.e. joining the Death Eaters and putting his life at risk for > that), or that he's trying to get information out of Draco about Lucius' > activities, just to keep tabs on what's going on outside Hogwarts. This brings to my mind another nagging question. At the end of GoF, Snape sits in on the end explanation and even backs up Harry's story about Voldemort by showing his DE mark to Fudge to prove it. He heard evidence to refute some of his bad feelings toward Harry. "...Potter saw me stealing more ingredients for the Polyjuice Potion from Snape's office one night...I could not hurt Potter; my master needed him. Potter ran to get Dumbledore. I Stunned Krum. I killed my father..." Snape had accused Harry of stealing the ingredients and he almost stopped Harry from getting to Dumbledore. The question is, will Snape treat Harry better in book 5? Or will he find a way to keep sneering at him? I can't decide. Kristen From jonmayes at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 23:48:08 2002 From: jonmayes at hotmail.com (jcminjapan ) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:48:08 -0000 Subject: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kewiromeo at a... wrote: > > And third on my list is belief that only Slytherin witches and > wizards went > > bad. Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went > bad that > > wasn't from Slytherin. This would mean that Wormtail had been from > Slytherin > > or a turncoat against the Gryffindor friends. If not, this would > mean that > > Remus, James, and Sirius were friends with a Slytherin. So you > can't rule out > > only Slytherins as being bad. Well, I think that Ron was giving his generalizations when this comment was made. There are alot more wizards that have graduated over the years that we know nothing about. I think that there are probably plenty in the different houses that went bad, but the majority are probably from slytherin as it is closer to their characteristics. I think we need to not take an 11 year old boys words for 100% truth. I am guessing it is like saying all computer professionals are geeks. Well, this is our image, but certainly far from the truth. It is the same thing with that comment. --jonmayes-- From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 00:21:52 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:21:52 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA (was: Lupin is James - time travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48887 > >> Sharana wrote: Back to Potterverse you say that the event that triggers the loop > >> is the act of going back in time. Yes, but you have to be alive > >> to go back in time. Harry is alive because a Patronus drove the > >> Dementors away before the kiss. Even if he had received the kiss > >> and goes back in time, he would not be able (being soulless) to > >> cast the Patronus, so someone else must have done it (the first > >> time), Harry later going back in time changed the fact on who > >> cast the Patronus from that loop on, but he couldn't have cast it > >> the first time. > >> > >Kristen wrote: > >Ok, I admit it, this time loop talk gives me a headache. Maybe I'm > >being very dense here, but why couldn't it be Harry the first > >time? If it had to be someone else, then who attended all of > >Hermione's classes? > Sharana wrote: > Don't worry Kristen, time loop talk is really complicated, > especially when you don't have graphics to aid you. I'll try to put > it as simple as I can (which is probably a lot more complicated than > I said before). > > First of all Hermione's classes is a different case than Harry > casting the Patronus the first time. Why? Hermione goes back in time > to attend to classes; she doesn't risk dying in doing so, unless you > count exhaustion, ;-) > > Hermione's time loop concerning her classes: > > Let's say Classes 1, 2 and 3 are at the same hour (9 am), Classes 4 > and 5 are both at 10 am. Each class is one hour long. That means she > must cover 5 hours of classes from 9 to 11 am. (2 hour period) (See > chart below ) > > She enters classes 1 (9 am) and 4 (10 am). She then establishes a > time loop going back in time, she lives these hours again (Second > time) only she attends classes 2 (9 am) and 5 (10 am). From her > point of view she has been in class for 4 hours, but she still needs > to cover Class 3 so she activates another loop and goes back a third > time. While she is in class 3 (9 am), there are two other Hermione's > around: Herm-1 which is in Class 1 and Herm-2 which is in class 2. > By the end of class 3 she has been in class for 5 hours, (but she is > the only one who went back in time, the rest of the kids only had 2 > hours) she ended class 3 at 10 am, but the loop was established at > 11 am, she still has to wait an hour to get out of the time loop, > she probably hides to do some homework. That is why she gets so > exhausted during PoA, she is awake and studying and attending > classes for a lot more hours than everybody else, she does not rest > enough. To her, the days do not last 24 hours long, they must last > about 35 hours. > > Loops [Cls 1] [Cls 2] [Cls 3] [Cls 4] [Cls5] [BackInTime] > 1stTime Herm-1 Herm-1 Herm-1 -> Herm- 2 > 2ndTime Herm-2 Herm-2 Herm-2 -> Herm- 3 > 3rdTime Herm-3 She doesn't > > > Harry and Hermione's Time loop concerning the Patronus... > > Remember, the loop BEGINS the moment you go back in time the first > time, NOT when the Patronus is cast. > > Harry is surrounded by Dementors, one of them kisses him, he now is > soulless so he cannot go back in time to cast a Patronus. So someone > else (X-Guy) goes back in time and casts the Patronus for him, which > makes the Dementor retreat before he kisses Harry (Harry-1), Harry > is OK and goes back in time with Hermione. Harry (Harry-2) decides > he wants to see who cast the Patronus that saved Harry-1, he > suddenly believes it was him so he has the confidence to do it and > he does. X-Guy is near Harry-2 and was about to cast the Patronus, > but Harry-2 didn't see him, X-Guy hides from the Harry-2 while > Harry-2 casts the Patronus. The loop will continue with Harry > casting the Patronus. He could not do it the first time because he > was kissed, making him incapable of casting any spell. > > Loops [DemKiss] [PatCast] [DemRetreat] [Harry Back In Time] > 1stTime Harry-1 No No > 2ndTime Harry-1 X-Guy Yes Harry-1 -> Harry-2 > 3rdTime Harry-2 Harry-1 Yes Harry-2 -> Harry 3 > And so on... And now me: Firstly, sorry for quoting so much, but the issue of time travel becomes very complicated. There is no one definition on time travel across all fantasy/sci- fiction texts. This is because there is several different ways of approaching it. Theories as I understand them go as such: 1) That every time one goes back in time they actually travel into a parallel universe (that is, they create a loop of the world they were in). The future forms of a person don't exist in the initial world. So, if you take this to be the type of time travel used in PoA, it means that in the Buckbeak was initially executed, as Future Harry and Hermione didn't exist yet. This phases no real problems as H2/H2 rescue him in the second existence and the actions of the executioner match what was originally heard anyway. However, it would also mean that Harry was indeed soul-sucked by the Dementor. This is where this theory of time-travel doesn't match the events of the book, as it would mean that Harry effectively 'died.' Which would mean that he couldn't go back in time later to save himself, Hermione and Sirius (and consequently the entire rest of the Harry Potter novels). This, obviously, suggests that this type of time travel doesn't occur with the use of a time-turner. 2) The second type you have described above. It is basically a slight variation on the first one I described. It is; that every time one goes back in time they actually travel into a parallel universe (creating a loop). The future forms of a person don't exist in the initial world, but other people (person-X) takes on the roles of what they will do in the future. To translate this into an example, it would mean that H2/H2 didn't exist in the initial time span to rescue Buckbeak, but some other person (person-X) did it. Then, in the second universe person-X didn't have to save Buckbeak, as he was already saved (by H2/H2). For the incidents with the Dementors at the Lake, it would mean that person-X cast the Patronus in the first universe, then stepped aside to let Harry cast it in the second universe. Whilst this is a valid form of time-travel, I don't agree with it in the PoA sense, because it asks the question: Who is person-X??? As far as we're aware the only people who know Hermione has a time- turner is McGonagall and Dumbledore. Dumbledore's amused actions at Buckbeaks appeal (where he stalls Macnair those few extra seconds that enable H2/H2/BB to escape, the way he has a slightly amused tone when Buckbeak's absence is discovered and his comment to 'search the skies' imply that he is very well aware that there is something fishy going on. This could mean that he is person-X in the first existence in relation to Buckbeaks's departure. Only, he doesn't look remarkably like James Potter to be person-X who casts the Patronus. 3) The third theory of time-travel is much simpler. That is, everything happened only once. When you go back in time you don't enter a parallel world, you go back to the initial one, and future forms on one self are free to interact with the events of the past. This one fits the events of PoA much better than either of the two described above. Unknown to Harry, Hermione and Ron, future forms of Harry and Hermione are simultaneously doing things around the school. When they are walking down to visit Hagrid underneath the invisibility cloak they hear 'a pair of people hurrying across the hall, and a door slamming.' Then, when we hear this event relayed from the perspective of H2/H2 it sounds like this: 'Hermione seized Harry's arm and dragged him across the hall to the door of a broom cupboard; she opened it, pushed him inside amongst the buckets and mops, followed him in, then slammed the door behind them.' which sounds exactly the same. If you take this form of time-travel to be the type used, it means that H2/H2 were hiding around Hagrid's hut and were the people who lead Buckbeak to safety. It means that Harry was the person (and indeed the *only* person) who cast the Patronus at the edge of the Lake. It also makes much more sense in regard to Hermione's timetable. She misses a charms class (cheering charms). She can't go back in time to sit through it because time exists only as one universe, and there is *extremely* strict rules dictating that one can't change time. That is, Harry and Ron realised that she wasn't in charms, so she couldn't go back and attend the class. If time-travel existed in a parallel universe style in HP where every time you go back you enter another world, then it wouldn't matter what Harry and Ron noticed, as Hermione would go to another world when she tipped over her time-turner in which Charms hadn't existed yet, so Harry and Ron hadn't noticed she wasn't there. Of course, even in the world of singular time existence you can do this- only it's changing time, which Hermione *mustn't* do. So, that sums up the tree theories of time travel that I'm familiar with. I believe that the third one has been used in PoA. Mostly because it is ever so much simpler that the other two, and doesn't leave any gaps open (things like; who is person-X?). Other pieces of canon evidence that support that type three is indeed the type of time-travel used are: 'This is three hours ago, and we are walking down to Hagrid's,' said Hermione. 'We just heard ourselves leaving ...' Which suggests that it is a singular time existence. "And then came the howling, and this time they could hear Hagrid's words through his sobs." Which suggests that they are experiencing the same event from a different perspective, not merely a new event. "And then it hit him - he understood. He hadn't seen his father - he had seen himself -" Which also suggests that it was a singular time existence. These all suggest that the use of a time-turner employs singular time, not parallel time. Both 1 and 2 rely on the idea that time- travel takes you into another parallel world. In relation to a specific part of the above quoted material, I believe that Sharana has mixed two different forms of time-travel theory. Sharana has employed the theory of number 2 for some instances (the big important ones) but then number 3 for other ones (Hermione's class schedule). Whilst I'm not directly criticising Sharana, I'm just suggesting that this couldn't exist in the same world using the same piece of apparatus. The Time-turner (presumably) can't discriminate if when you go back in time you will be in a life- threatening situation, so should treat all the same. By this I mean, that if indeed there is person-X time-travel, then there should be a Hermione place-holder who went to all of her classes the first time, looking exactly like her, and interacting the same as she does who then disappeared as soon as real Hermione appeared. Because Hermione uses time-travel so frequently and we would many times simultaneously, it seems unlikely. I often wonder about the use of person-X time-travel, as if someone was already there, why go back in the first place? By that I mean, if Harry and co. were already saved by mysterious person on the other side of the Lake, where is the need to go back and save them?? (of course, it should be noted that no-one had any idea that they were going to be in need of saving when H2/H2 were sent back). Also, on a completely trivial note in regards to Hermione's daily routine, I'd always assumed it would have been easier for her to go back singular hours at a time, not two classes with breaks in between, simply because they was less chance of her being seen, which appears to be the almighty rule of going back in time- 'you know the law - you know what is at stake ... You - must - not - be - seen.' says Dumbledore in the hospital wing. Anyway, that's enough from me. I do hope my summaries of possible time-travel scenarios were easy enough to understand, and that I haven't confused anyone further. (And now I'm giving myself a headache- too much time-travel theory does that to people) ~<(Laurasia)>~ From potterfan23 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 01:03:34 2002 From: potterfan23 at hotmail.com (Emily F) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:03:34 -0600 Subject: Lupin is James Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48888 Sharana, This is certainly a very well-researched theory. However, something about it just doesn't sit right with me. The most important hole I found in your theory is: why??? Why would James, and most significantly, Remus, do this? With hindsight being perfect, we all know that if they *did* do this, then they saved James' life. But without knowing that James and Lily would be killed, why take such a drastic measure AND perform the Fidelius charm? While James and Lily knew they were in danger, did they really think they were going to die? If they were fighting Voldemort as many people assume, then theye probably faced death several times and escaped. I think they assumed that they could hide using the Fidelius charm for a while until the storm blew over (presumably, they weren't planning on using it indefinitely). Second, assuming that James and Lily knew they would die, then a bluff would be necessary to keep James alive (again, a bluff *in addition* to the Fidelius charm). Why would Remus agree to take James' place in death? I understand that James and Lily were parents, but this is still a very drastic step. And why Remus? Did Remus deserve to die more than James did? I don't doubt that Remus would make a sacrifice like this if called upon, but why on earth would James ever ask this of his friend? Third, why Remus, and not Sirius? Or someone else? If James and Lily were as well-liked as people seem to think, then they probably had several friends. Again, though, this is assuming that James would be willing to "sacrifice" one of his friends, and I really don't understand why he would do that. Fourth, why James, and not Lily? Did James deserve to live more than Lily? If James believed that Lily wouldn't be killed, then why would Remus swtich with James? If Lily was going to live, then there wouldn't be the same sense of urgency (i.e., Harry would not be orphaned, so it's not as though this was a necessary step to prevent that). Just some ponderings... Emily _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedjmf_3mf From andie at knownet.net Sat Dec 28 01:30:23 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (grindieloe ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 01:30:23 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's Wand with a side ponder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48889 Malady says...it could be just a half-truth. He has the pieces but they were pieced back together well. We all discredit Hagrid on this site, so it is possible he is flustering his truths again. A lie hiding in a truth. Me: While Hagrid does occasionally tell little white lies, personally, I really don't discredit Hagrid. Hagrid always means well and he truly is Dumbledore's #1 Fan; therefore, I think that as long as Hagrid believes he has Dumbledore's support, he will continue to occasionally do magic that he's technically not supposed to do. The only approval he's looking for is Dumbledore's... :) Just felt the need to add my 2 knuts! :) grindieloe From spi00000000 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 01:48:27 2002 From: spi00000000 at yahoo.com (spi00000000 ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 01:48:27 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant?------ Is PoA irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48890 Hi! I'm new to this list and to the HP fandom. I just recently recieved PoA for Christmas and devoured it in one day. I have seen both movies and read most of SS. I find my self pondering PoA's relevance. The only important thing I can figure is that it gives us a history lesson. We learn about the Potters/ Snape- MWPP back in the day at Hogwarts. But in this book, Harry doesn't defeat Voldie in any way, and he never relly battles anyone as in the previous books. So what is PoA's relevance? "spi" From DMCourt11 at cs.com Sat Dec 28 02:52:25 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11 ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 02:52:25 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry (WAS: Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gkjpo " wrote: > The question is, will Snape treat Harry better in book 5? Or will he > find a way to keep sneering at him? > > I can't decide. > > Kristen I'm hoping their relationship will change and book 5 would be a good place to start. Snape has always been one of the most complex and three dimensional characters in the series. However if he never reacts to new circumstances or information, he's going to become more cartoonish. Some things change gradually, such as Harry's growing up through the series. Some things change more quickly, as when Snape is forced to acknowledge Sirius at the end of GOF as part of Dumbledore's modified "old crowd." Harry has to change a bit also. It hasn't been all that noticable so far, but when book 5 begins he will be 15. I don't expect him to be adult about Snape, but he should begin to realize that you sometimes have to work closely with people you don't like. Maybe also that while he can't change the way Snape acts toward him, he can change the way he reacts to this. That being said, I still think there will be plenty of opportunity for Snape to sneer at Harry. Although I think their relationship needs to evolve, around most people he would need to treat him the same as usual, especially if Snape does go back to Voldemort as a spy. Also since one's basic personality changes little, Snape will always be bad tempered and impatient, although maybe by book 7 he will have mellowed slightly. Very slightly, I hope, since the picture of a Snape in pastels singing "Everything is Beautiful" while cuddling a kitten gives me the willies! Donna From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Dec 28 02:54:02 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:54:02 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS irrelevant?------ Is PoA irrelevant? Message-ID: <57.160b639f.2b3e6c4a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48892 In a message dated 27/12/2002 21:30:23 Eastern Standard Time, spi00000000 at yahoo.com writes: > I find my self pondering PoA's > relevance. The only important thing I can figure is that it gives us > a history lesson. We learn about the Potters/ Snape- MWPP back in the > day at Hogwarts. But in this book, Harry doesn't defeat Voldie in any > way, and he never relly battles anyone as in the previous books. So > what is PoA's relevance? > Where to begin? PoA is my personal favourite... In PoA Harry is introduced to deeper aspects of his parents' luves and deaths. He discovers Sirius's innocence and that he has a gaurdian that is NOT the Durselys. Harry is faced with decisions that display what kind of wizard he is and gives us a little bit of what kind of wizard he will become. He chooses to allow his enemies to live when given an option to kill them. The relationships between the trio, HHR, strengthen through peril. The characters grow more and more complex. The plot thickens even more for Harry, the past, and the future. PoA also introduces us to more of the Wizarding World. It has great relevence in showing the reader more of what there is to Wizarding Britain. The characters other than the Marauders whom you meet in the book are pretty darn important in Goblet of Fire, too- people who on first reading and without reading GoF may not seem that important, become so... Another point of interest in PoA is Harry's Patronus. His father is with him always. Harry, who has been struggling with the loss of his parents, but only since his around his 11th birthday, struggling with the way they died and who killed them, needs to learn these kinds of lessons. They are extremely important in the development of Harry as a whole character. Also, he learns more about the night of his parents' deaths. The Dementors aid in that, of course, but through the experiences with them, Harry learns that his real fear is just that, fear. There is a theme of that in the book, as well.. There is so much more... my suggestion would be to finish PS/.SS, read CoS if you haven't, and definitely read GoF- if you didn't read CoS and only saw the film, you missed out on a lot of great reading, not to mention some points in the story glossed over in the film. When you read GoF, you will understand more why PoA has great importance. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 05:15:12 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 05:15:12 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48893 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erisedstraeh2002 " wrote: > Steve originally wrote: > > > So while they can't curse each other in this one simultaneous > > curse circumstances, they can curse each other. ..edited... > > Now me: (Phyllis) > > Since the wand has to "meet its brother" in order for the wands > to "not work properly against each other," both wizards must be > using their wands at or about the same time. ...edited... > -end this part- bboy_MN: I agree with you again, although not completely. You are right my choice of the word 'simultanious' might have implied a precision that I did not intend. The curses have to occur close to each other in both time and space. Extremely close but not really in the same microsecond. I do believe the forces have to connect, but not necessarily collide, but the 'beam' of one curse has to touch the 'beam' of the other curse. And of course, the on coming curse has to miss it's intended target. In the case of Harry/Voldemort, the head on collision prevented followed by the 'Brother Effect' prevented those curses from going any farther. Can I prove that? No. But it seems implied from the two incidences we have. -end this part- > Steve (bboy_mn) again: (originally said) > > > I think the duel between Malfoy and Harry where the curses > > collided and ricocheted off each other was the setup for this. > > It made us aware the this simultaneous curses was an unusual > > circumstance. > > -end this part- > > Now me: (Phyllis) > > When Harry and Malfoy's curses collided, ... . Both curses were > successful ? ... eidted... > > In priori incantatem, the curses are ineffective ? ...edited.... > So I see the two simultaneous curse situations as being very > different from one another. > -end this part- bboy_mn: Yes, definitely different. The Harry/Draco incident was merely the setup. It implanted in our minds that curses thrown at the same time, contacting each other in the air, produced unusually results. It made us aware that it was possible for the curse to make contact with each other as well as the intended target. To my knowledge, we have never seen a curse ricochet before; not against another curse or against another object. In this incident, the was no 'Brother Wand Effect' because they didn't have brother wands. There was no Prior Incantaum, because the duel ended with the curses. In the graveyard, the 'Brother Effect' kicked in and the duel continued until Harry forced the light-beads back into Voldemort's wand, and that's what produced the Prior Incantatum effect. - end BBOY_MN - > ...edited... > > ~Phyllis Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 05:41:45 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 05:41:45 -0000 Subject: Simple spell origin, Krum... and a Pettigrew Question In-Reply-To: <27.34e1d5ee.2b3e1768@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > In a message dated 27/12/2002 11:03:58 Eastern Standard Time, > urbana at c... writes: > > (September 1, 1991 if you follow the HP timeline), no wizards or > > witches from any houses other than Slyterin had gone bad. Does > > this make sense? ...edited... > Snuffles: > IMHO, I think that the statement about Slytherins "There was not a > witch a wizard..." is just an emphasis on how many people from > Slytherin had gone to the Dark Side. > ...edited... -end Snuffles- bboy_mn Let's simplify the statement that all bad wizard are Slytherin. down to it's most simple form. Possibility 1.) All Slytherins are bad wizards. Possibility 2.) All bad wizards are Slythern. 1.) Defines a Slytherin subset of the bad wizard's universe. 2.) Defines the entire universe of bad wizards as being made up exclusively of Slytherins. Certainly, the are lots of bad wizards through out history that were not Slytherin. Therefore, Slytherin can not define the entire universe. The only other conclusion is that Slytherins are bad wizards but they are not all the bad wizards that exist. I think if we take the original Ron/Hagrid statements as general conversation phrased to make a point, a reasonable conclusion would be that Slytherin produces a very disproportionately high share of bad wizards. But regardless of how it was phrased, it was not an absolute statement intended to definitively define the universe. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Dec 28 05:54:03 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:54:03 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS irrelevant?------ Is PoA irrelevant? Message-ID: <61.2b4d46f7.2b3e967b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48895 In a message dated 27/12/2002 21:30:23 Eastern Standard Time, spi00000000 at yahoo.com writes: > . But in this book, Harry doesn't defeat Voldie in any > way, and he never relly battles anyone as in the previous books. So > what is PoA's relevance? > ok. ok. I thought of a few more points, and I just can't stop. This list is like an addiction... To answer this bit of your question; the "battle" in this book, imho, is a battle between good and evil and what is right/just vs. what is wrong/unjust. the battlefield in this book is more mental than anything else. - it adds to the depth of Harry's character for the reader. Also, the most important thing to me in PoA is the prediction and it's somewhat come-upense. Trelawny says that Voldemort's faithful servant will return to him and he will rise to power again. This is ever so important! (and I am kicking myself for leaving it out in my first post to this thread) When you read GoF you will better understand... I don't want to give any of that book away to you-- I will warn you though to select carefully which posts you read until you have read all of the books, if you are anything like me.. I would have hated having the details of each story spoiled before I read them In any event,. hope this has been some help - coupled with my first post to your question. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nj13guy at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 04:44:00 2002 From: nj13guy at yahoo.com (Potter Hermione forever ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 04:44:00 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48896 wrote: > Since the wand has to "meet its brother" in order for the wands > to "not work properly against each other," both wizards must be using > their wands at or about the same time. I don't think this means that > the curses have to be simultaneous, or collide in mid-air, but both > wizards do need to be actively using their wands. Now, me: Correct. But, It raises one question. Why was Voldemort not able to kill Harry when he was a baby. He did not have a wand then? I agree that Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. But, what does that mean? Does that mean she came between the 'Avada Kedavra' curse meant for Harry & got killed instead or was it something else? D'dore said something about LOVE. That is so corny. I was looking for something more logical. jmho wrote: > Voldemort cursed Harry in the graveyard, Harry wasn't using his wand. > Nom me: Harry was using his wand while fighting Voldemort. Voldemort ordered Pettigrew to give Harry his wand back! Harry was carrying his wand when he touched the Cup. ~ Potter Hermione Forever From kewiromeo at aol.com Sat Dec 28 06:07:08 2002 From: kewiromeo at aol.com (kewiromeo at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 01:07:08 EST Subject: Addressing a friend. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48897 "Fancy seeing you here Professor McGonagall" says Dumbledore in chapter one of PS/SS. Does anyone else find this strange that he would call her by her teaching name. He calls her Minerva, he calls Madam Pomfrey, Poppy. So why would he address her like that? I'm guessing she only puts this in to introduce the character. She wants to let you know that she is a harsh and strict character, not your friend. But why would Dumbledore call her by that name. Or perhaps, McGonagall is someone else, much older than Dumbledore and he is meant to show respect. Tzvi of Brooklyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jonmayes at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 07:10:42 2002 From: jonmayes at hotmail.com (jcminjapan ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:10:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry (WAS: Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bookraptor11 " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gkjpo " > wrote: > > The question is, will Snape treat Harry better in book 5? Or will > he > > find a way to keep sneering at him? > > > > I can't decide. > > > > Kristen > > I'm hoping their relationship will change and book 5 would be a good > place to start. > > Snape has always been one of the most complex and three dimensional > characters in the series. However if he never reacts to new > circumstances or information, he's going to become more cartoonish. > Some things change gradually, such as Harry's growing up through the > series. Some things change more quickly, as when Snape is forced to > acknowledge Sirius at the end of GOF as part of Dumbledore's > modified "old crowd." > > Harry has to change a bit also. It hasn't been all that noticable so > far, but when book 5 begins he will be 15. I don't expect him to be > adult about Snape, but he should begin to realize that you sometimes > have to work closely with people you don't like. Maybe also that > while he can't change the way Snape acts toward him, he can change > the way he reacts to this. > > That being said, I still think there will be plenty of opportunity > for Snape to sneer at Harry. Although I think their relationship > needs to evolve, around most people he would need to treat him the > same as usual, especially if Snape does go back to Voldemort as a spy. > > Also since one's basic personality changes little, Snape will always > be bad tempered and impatient, although maybe by book 7 he will have > mellowed slightly. Very slightly, I hope, since the picture of a > Snape in pastels singing "Everything is Beautiful" while cuddling a > kitten gives me the willies! > > Donna Personally I think that many people have Snape tagged wrong about his feelings towards Harry. I have had this thought..... Snape knows that Harry is treated special compared to the others. Snape knows that many people are watching out for him and trying to protect him and in some ways he is coddled a little bit too much for Snapes liking. I think that Snape does realize the potential of Harry and he thinks that he should be tougher on him for him to reach his full potential. (Possibly why the sorting hat wanted to put him in slytherin???? Maybe the hat knew Snape was the best headmaster for him??) After all did`t the hat say that Harry wanted to prove himself? Well, Snape is pushing Harry because Harry needs to be pushed. When Harry is pushed he is at his best.) Snape is always putting Draco and Harry up against each other, possibly not to show up Harry, but to try and get Draco to be a bit humble and possible learn something from Harry. Of course Snape is still upset by the events of past years with Harrys father, but Snape is a big boy now and I do not think that he would take out his hatred on James` son. I think that we will find out later that Snape probably cares for Harry more than almost everyone. As for next year, I do not see Snape letting up too much on Harry. I personally think that he will push Harry further as to bring out more in him in these times of need. But, I personally think that Snape will be a pivitol character in helping Harry in his times of need. JCMinJapan aka: Jon From kewiromeo at aol.com Sat Dec 28 09:57:13 2002 From: kewiromeo at aol.com (kewiromeo at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 04:57:13 EST Subject: a Pettigrew Question Message-ID: <10c.1ce25dff.2b3ecf79@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48899 srsiriusblack at aol.com writes Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:51:52 EST Peter heard how Sirius escaped and how in animal form thoughts are simpler than humans.... So if he had gone to Azkaban, Sirius had, in a way, given him the formula for escape.... This makes me wonder if anyone thought Pettigrew was smart enough to use it or if they even thought that it was an issue??? Me: Indeed, Sirius told Peter the exact way to escape. Only problem is, you need the obsession, knowledge, that you are innocent. When Peter got away in the end there was no one conciouse to catch him and kill him. If he is captured and attempts to transform, I am sure he will be easily killed/recaptured easily. Having said any of this, if he ever does get caught, and of course I am hoping he will be, Sirius will probably be let off. We are left in a new age in wizarding as Dumbledore and Fudge have had a parting of ways. Will the ministry have any power in the coming of the second dark magic age? It has been suggested that Fudge is on the bad side. He might be keeping Sirius down for a reason. One last thing. In GoF when Karkarof is being interogated in front of the ministry he claims that Voldermort solely knows the names of all the Death Eaters. When they return to his side he simply introduces them all. Perhaps Karkarof is just lying to save his own skin. He might have been protecting some other people. Or JKR was just contradicting her statements. Tzvi of Brooklyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sushi at societyhappens.com Sat Dec 28 10:41:48 2002 From: sushi at societyhappens.com (Sushi) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 04:41:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Addressing a friend. Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021228044122.02640490@mail.societyhappens.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48900 Tzvi of Brooklyn wrote: >"Fancy seeing you here Professor McGonagall" says Dumbledore in chapter one >of PS/SS. Does anyone else find this strange that he would call her by her >teaching name. He calls her Minerva, he calls Madam Pomfrey, Poppy. So why >would he address her like that? I've always taken it as a combination of introducing the character, and a bit of an in-joke between friends. Albus strikes me as the sort of person who would chide Minerva about shedding on his couch, scratching up the school tapestries, yowling at the moon, that sort of thing. Therefore, the relative absurdity of a respected teacher sitting in cat form in a Muggle residential area would probably strike him as hilarious (grave situation aside). On the matter of character, we find out quite soundly how strict and harsh McGonagall can be. However, as the one person at Hogwarts to whom she has to bow, Albus probably teases her about it mercilessly. I can see her being a bit of a hellion at school (smoking behind the broom shed after Quidditch practise, running in the halls, pranking Slytherins, that sort of thing); it would explain quite a bit about why and how she knows so much about her students getting in trouble, and why she's so hard on them. If Albus were to use her title ironically from time to time, just to remind her in a sidelong way what she was like once, it might have the effect of keeping her a little more "human" (especially when she's doing something that could be construed as deceitful - ie, surveillance on a house, the occupants of which have no idea with what they're about to be saddled). Sorry this is so disjointed. It's 2am and, for once, I'm tired at this hour. Bah. I want my "up until dawn" metabolism back. Sushi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Dec 28 11:38:56 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:38:56 -0000 Subject: Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem? (WAS: Meaning of OotP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Potter Hermione forever " wrote: > Why was Voldemort not able to > kill Harry when he was a baby. He did not have a wand then? > I agree that Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. But, what does > that mean? Does that mean she came between the 'Avada Kedavra' > curse meant for Harry & got killed instead or was it something > else?D'dore said something about LOVE. That is so corny. I was > looking for something more logical. > > jmho Pip replies: Logical? Sorry, but the Potterverse is a world of magic, not of logic. [grin] Seriously, the Potterverse is one where the emotions are important as the *source* of magic. One of the first things Hagrid says to Harry is `not a wizard, eh? Never made things happen when you was scared, or angry?' [PS/SS p. 47,Ch. 4 UK paperback.] Magic in the Potterverse is to some extent the emotions refined and made pure. A curse is hate put in the form of a spell. Accio is the desire for something put into a spell. I don't think this follows throughout; I have some difficulty working out what emotion is connected with Transfiguration or Potions. But the emotions are extremely real and powerful in the Potterverse. Love is the most powerful of all the emotions. In a world where the emotion of hate can come flying at you in the form of a curse, can even kill you, it is `not logical Captain' to expect that the emotion of love is incapable of producing magic. Magic that is ultimately more powerful. Pip (who currently is trying to write on a keyboard with a wobbly `O' and `P', which makes things a little difficult. Especially when you're called `Pip') From Lynx412 at aol.com Sat Dec 28 12:47:19 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:47:19 EST Subject: DE names Message-ID: <19c.e5a6681.2b3ef757@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48902 In a message dated 12/28/02 5:21:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, kewiromeo at aol.com writes: > One last thing. In GoF when Karkarof is being interogated in front of the > ministry he claims that Voldermort solely knows the names of all the Death > Eaters. When they return to his side he simply introduces them all. Perhaps > > Karkarof is just lying to save his own skin. He might have been protecting > some other people. Or JKR was just contradicting her statements. Actually, I commented on this before. I suspect that Voldemort was publicly giving out the names of those DEs who got off by claiming to have been Imperio'd. We know, from other comments, that Lucius Malfoy claimed to have been, as well as many others. I think LV called them by name to keep them from making that claim again. They would not have come if they'd only obeyed him due to Imperio. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 14:46:09 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:46:09 -0000 Subject: Power of love (was Mid-Air Collision Required for Priori Incantatem?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48903 Potter Hermione forever wrote: > > Why was Voldemort not able to > > kill Harry when he was a baby. He did not have a wand then? > > I agree that Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. But, what does > > that mean? Does that mean she came between the 'Avada Kedavra' > > curse meant for Harry & got killed instead or was it something > > else?D'dore said something about LOVE. That is so corny. I was > > looking for something more logical. Pip wrote: > Love is the most powerful of all the emotions. In a world where the > emotion of hate can come flying at you in the form of a curse, can > even kill you, it is `not logical Captain' to expect that the > emotion of love is incapable of producing magic. Magic that is > ultimately more powerful. Where I come from, the overwhelming majority of the citizens subscribe to a religion that believes love has successfully overcome death and sin. Corny, possibly (though I would say not--true love is much too serious for the hearts-and-roses stuff). Magical, absolutely. And IMO, magic is frequently more persuasive than logic. Amy Z From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 14:46:33 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:46:33 -0000 Subject: DE names In-Reply-To: <19c.e5a6681.2b3ef757@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48904 Cheryl:"I suspect that Voldemort was publicly giving out the names of those DEs who got off by claiming to have been Imperio'd. We know, from other comments, that Lucius Malfoy claimed to have been, as well as many others. I think LV called them by name to keep them from making that claim again. They would not have come if they'd only obeyed him due to Imperio." A fair point, and likely enough. You could also say that since the DE's had come forward thirteen years ago to save themselves their covers are all "blown" anyway, so further secrecy is irrelevant. Herein lies a plot seed that JKR may or may not use. If Voldemort recruited new DE's, would he tell the others? Maybe not, and it could leave lesser lights like Crabbe and Goyle to be cannon fodder for a new generation of Aurors while the recruits work in renewed secrecy. From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 16:30:41 2002 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:30:41 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA (was: Lupin is James - time travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48905 Laurasia wrote: > Also, on a completely trivial note in regards to Hermione's daily > routine, I'd always assumed it would have been easier for her to go > back singular hours at a time, not two classes with breaks in > between, simply because they was less chance of her being seen, which > appears to be the almighty rule of going back in time- 'you know the > law - you know what is at stake ... You - must - not - be - seen.' > says Dumbledore in the hospital wing. > This is where I have a problem. Hermione WAS seen time traveling. Everybody in all her classes saw her, and commented on it. "How is she doing it? She hasn't missed any (simultaneous) classes?" (Paraphrased) Wasn't this breaking the rules? Or did they mean that no one should see two copies of someone? But then they wouldn't have needed to hide from tipsy Hagrid because he could only see them once. ~Constance Vigilance From melclaros at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 17:18:30 2002 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:18:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry (WAS: Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jcminjapan " wrote: > Personally I think that many people have Snape tagged wrong > about his feelings towards Harry. me: And I agree with you. I just don't see it as "I hate this kid, just can't stand the sight of him!" sort of thing. First of all, Snape just doesn't have the TIME for that sort of thing. The first potions class in PS/SS is a perfect example of this. If he REALLY hated Harry that much, he'd simply ignore him or snipe and tease the way he does Neville. But what does he do? He presents him with FIRST a one on one oral exam (seen as an attack and understandably so) and then follows that up with a face-to-face explanation of some interesting facts about poisons, antidotes and a particular potion that mimics the effect of poison. Snape is PREPPING this kid from the 1st day of class. > . When Harry is pushed he is at his best.) Snape is always > putting Draco and Harry up against each other, possibly not to show > up Harry, but to try and get Draco to be a bit humble and possible > learn something from Harry. Me: The Draco "favoritism"--I've never seen it. I see him as tolerating (sometimes only barely--think that smarmy you should be headmaster scene) Draco. I see him using Draco as a test for Harry since he knows how much Harry hates him and vice-versa. He knows Harry MUST learn to control his feelings and emotions when facing an adversary, who better to put him up against than Draco Malfoy? If he puts on a show that makes Harry THINK he's favoring Malfoy then so much the better. All's fair in love and war. Harry is going to be fighting in a war. He's got to be able to do it with a level head. Emotion is what (in Snape's mind) killed Harry's parents. > I think that we will find out later that Snape probably cares for > Harry more than almost everyone. Me: "cares for" now that may be a stretch. BUT if it was, as most of us assume, Severus who tipped DD off to V's plan to murder the Potters and it came to no good he MAY be thinking, "I couldn't save his idiot father, but I'll be damned if I lose the kid." As for next year, I do not see > Snape letting up too much on Harry. I personally think that he will > push Harry further as to bring out more in him in these times of > need. But, I personally think that Snape will be a pivitol > character in helping Harry in his times of need. Me: I see Harry eventually, grudgingly, asking Snape for help. Someone else mentioned that here. That he gets so fed up with incompetent instruction against the Dark Arts that he finally breaks down, SWALLOWS HIS PRIDE and goes and ASKS FOR HELP from the one person he knows can give it. To follow this line of thought, I'm wondering if THIS is why Snape (if indeed he really does covet the position) is not DADA instructor. Dumbledore says "there is always help for those who ask for it" (paraphrasing from COS). He could be forcing the issue on both of them. Just some thoughts. Melpomene From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 18:03:50 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:03:50 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laura " wrote: >> But CoS? Unless I'm missing something, it seems sort of out in the > middle of nowhere. Any thoughts? > In addition to what's already been mentioned, CoS gives us an extended intro to The Burrow (thus, a positive nurturing family as opposed to the hostility in which Harry was raised); the deepest glimpse so far into the world of the ghosts; the first mention of Azkaban; the first acting-out of the Wizard's duel (of pivotal importance to GoF's climax); and the introduction of Aragog - I have a feeling he, like the Centaurs (fellow FF inhabitants), will have some significant role to play in the future volumes. - CMC (who became a hard-core HP fan due to CoS) From danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 18:19:17 2002 From: danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com (Danny Tenenbaum) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:19:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Harry (WAS: Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021228181917.26473.qmail@web10302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48908 --- "melclaros " wrote: > Me: > I see Harry eventually, grudgingly, asking Snape for > help. Someone > else mentioned that here. That he gets so fed up > with incompetent > instruction against the Dark Arts that he finally > breaks down, > SWALLOWS HIS PRIDE and goes and ASKS FOR HELP from > the one person he > knows can give it. > > > Just some thoughts. > Melpomene I personally Think that Rowling merely used Snape to act as a pseudo- archenemy for Harry in the first 4 years, kind of in preperation for the much bigger and important battles he will face in 5,6,7. I think the end of the 4th book symbolized the official end of Snape's unneccesary punishments to Harry. I believe that Snape served to show how Voldemort's treatment of Harry is so much worse and villianous than the grudge that Snape holds against him. I think that Snape will be one of the strongest anti-Voldemort leaders (His treatment of Karkaroff; willingness to show dark mark to Fudge). I also think that after being chased down by Voldemort himself, Snape will sacrifice himself for Harry, and that Snape is the "fan of Harry" that supposively dies in Book 5. In the first 4 books, Snape definately is hard on Harry during class, but he definately rewards hard-work, and we never see Harry complaining about a low grade in Potions. Please feel free to respond -Danny __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From susannahlm at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 19:53:35 2002 From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (susannahlm ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 19:53:35 -0000 Subject: SHIP(TBAY)R/H vs. H/H vs. FITD--Banging Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48909 (Apologies in advance to Captain Cindy, in case she's really a hopeless romantic, and about the flying ships, to anyone who hates them.) Derannimer is lying prone on the beach. She has a headache. She stayed up *far* too late in George's Tavern the other night, dipping into the Great Snape Discussion, and left and took a walk along the shore to clear her head, but it doesn't seem to have worked very well. She wishes that her head would stop making those loud exploding noises. *Ow.* The beach shakes slightly, as another one of those exploding noises sounds off, and it suddenly occurs to Derannimer that possibly it is not her head that is responsible for the noises in the first place. Derannimer raises herself painfully, squinting out over the bright water as she props one elbow in the sand. The sight before her eyes makes her jaw drop open. *Ships.* The water shines white in the sun, as little yachts, speedboats, cruise ships, skim across the surface. But Derannimer is not looking at the water. Above the Bay, hanging somehow in the glaring sapphire of the sky, are two vast galleons. A haze of smoke is not sufficient to hide the color of fire, as it sparks and flames from the two mighty vessels, which are rolling, not on the waves, but on the wind, and rocking from the force of one another's cannon fire. It is utterly beautiful. If in a rather violent way. A cannonball scuds into the sand about a hundred yards from Derannimer's position. She gets up, balancing carefully, and backs away from the water's edge. She backs into somebody, and falls down again. The balancing still needs a little work. "Oh, I-I'm sorry," she stutters, red-faced at her clumsiness. "I'm sorry, I didn't realize. . ." Her voice trails off, as she looks up to see Captain Cindy staring down at her, plainly somewhat concerned. "Have you been out since that whole Snape thing?" asks the Captain. "Yes, I think. I think there might have been something worng with my drink, I--" "Brandy?" "No, why?" "Never mind, go on." "I had the *oddest* dream, I dreamt that Elkins came back to the Bay, down to the *beach*, and spoke for a whole *day* about *Barty Crouch Senior,* of all weird things, and I was tremendously enlightened and impressed, but there was this *horse,* and I didn't like it *at all,* and--" "Neither did I." The Captain's face is grim. Derannimer is momentarily baffled. "You. . . "Oh. "That really *happened?*" "Yup." Derannimer senses a certain rummy something in the Captain's manner. Possibly it was the horse. She feels that she'd best change the subject, as her head (though improving) is still in no condition to deal with certain rummy somethings. She gestures towards the still-flashing spectacle above the waters. "What's--" she waves a vague arm seawards--"all *that?*" The Captain snorts. "It's a shipping war. The vessels involved are the S.S. H/H and the Good Ship R/H, and they've been at it like this since the beginning of the list--I mean even when we were with Yahoo *Clubs.*" Seeing the rather shocked look on Derannimer's face, the Captain hastens to clarify. "I don't mean they've been at it like this *nonstop* all this time. No, most of the time, the crews are content to loll around below deck, drinking and reading fanfics, but every few months, they apparently get bored and try to blast each other out of--or maybe *into*--the water." The Captain snorts again. "Can't say I go in for that sort of thing myself." Derannimer, who has still been working out the first sentence of this explanation, suddenly brightens. "Oh! The whole Harry/Hermione/Ron thing." "Yup." "I take it you don't ship?" "I don't go out there engaging in Pitched Naval Combat about it. If you want to do that, heaven knows there are more interesting things to fight about." Derannimer sits in silence for a moment, watching the great ships out over the Bay. Words of fire pattern onto the sky each time a cannon goes off, shimmering as they fall through the bright sky. You can follow the fight right from the shore. After a minute, Derannimer notices something. "Those ships aren't fighting on the Bay," she says quietly. "Well, duh." The Captain is looking at Derannimer, frowning. "They're fighting in the sky." "I know *that.* I meant--" "Shipping wars almost *never* take place on Theory Bay. Most of the biggest shippers never even come down here--I mean, sure, they've got those rope ladders, but they generally--" "I meant--" Derannimer has decided to raise her voice somewhat-- "more than that. I mean, they aren't fighting in a Bay *way.* "I mean look at them," she continues. "No weird acronyms, no metaphors, half of the crew members--on *both* ships--are fighting on horseback, which can't be the most efficient way to do things; it's. . . so *different.*" "You have to understand, Derannimer: shipping is *not* theorizing. "Oh R/H are so *cute* together!" is not theorizing. Neither is "Oh but R/H *bicker* so much!" by the way. Both those ships are in the business of *predicting;* they're looking forward to events that haven't even happened yet, and are *heavily* influenced by the personal preferences of the crew, and--" "No one's even done a basic Bang assessment!" Derannimer's eyes are wide with shock. "Not even *I* try to make the shippers do a Bang assessment. Repeat after me: 'Shipping is different.' They just don't do things the same way as we do down here." Derannimer is feeling stubborn. This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. "But look here," she says. "As the Captain of the Big Bang destroyer, surely you look for Bang wherever it can be found, right?" "Heavens yes." "I mean, you even tried to make Neville's *toad* Bang once, so--" "Can't everyone just forget about that," mutters Captain Cindy. --"*so,* why can't this whole triangle Bang? I mean, I know that you don't like to ascribe purely romantic motivations to people, but all the same, the H/R/H dispute is about the *main darn characters.* If they start falling in love with each other, in *any* permutation, shouldn't that have some effect on the story line? Do you really think that JKR would throw it in just for an "awww" moment? And if it effects the story line, then--according to the Big Bang's charter-- it's going to effect it with a major Bang. "So, even if the whole argument is about competing predictions, maybe we could evaluate the predictions the same way we eveluate Theory Bay arguments." Derannimer thinks for a minute. "Anyway," she says, "that whole Snape thing back. . . whenever that was, was really a matter of competing predictions, and the comparative Banginess of the two. You know, Assassin vs. Saboteur. Which one is more Bangy. I really don't see why we can't do the same thing here." "But shipping is--" "Look. JKR is going to write the H/R/H matter the same way that she's going to write everything else. Why can't we theorize about it the same way we theorize about everything else?" Captain Cindy still looks slightly unconvinced, so Derannimer adds: "Anyway, if we do, we can sit here and watch the battle. It looks really pretty, up in the sky and all." The Captain finally shrugs and sits down on the sand next to Derannimer. "Right then," says the Captain, "so first of all, I trust you *do* know the proper definition of Bang." "The 'Big Bang' theory," recites Derannimer, "is an all-encompassing approach to canon theorizing based on the notion that JKR herself prefers to use highly dramatic, cinematic, or even melodramatic events to serve as catalytic turning points in her characters' lives. "It can be applied to other areas than character analysis," she adds after a minute. "Again, the Snape discussion was more related to plot twists than to character twists." "Okay," nods the Captain. "So-- "Posit: Ron falls for Hermione, Hermione reciprocates. Bang Analysis: give it a shot." "Okay. . . um. . . " Derannimer isn't entirely comfortable with the idea of doing a Bang Analysis while she's sitting right next to Captain Cindy and her Big Paddle. "Um. . . not great." "*That* is not an answer." "Right, right," says Derannimer hastily. "Well then. . ." She thinks for a moment, then nods her head. "Well, first of all, we've all been *predicting* Ron/Hermione since halfway through Book 4. I mean, good grief, a lot of the R/H people say they've been predicting it since the end of Book 2, what with the "Eat slugs" incident and everything. So none of the readers would really be surprised. You'd have to pretty dense (or Ron) not to have seen *that* one coming for a while. "Also, it doesn't do much for character development, and certainly not in a catalytic sort of way. After all, Ron is (by nearly everybody's admission) in love with Hermione already. And, given that he has abandoned his animus towards Viktor Krum at the end of GOF, enough for an autograph anyway, he may even have already *realized* that he's in love with her. If he realizes that his earlier fight with Hermione wasn't really over Krum, then he may well have wised up enough to realize what it *was* over. "So, there's no Bang from Ron falling for her--that's already happened. There's no Bang from knowing that he's fallen for her--he already knows, or at least has a fourteen-year-old boy's dim perception of it. "And I'm sorry, but I can't see much Bang if Hermione falls for him back either. Both of those ships *agree* that Harry doesn't currently care about Hermione that way, so no jealousy or other interesting stuff. Both of those ships *agree* (for the most part) that R/H does not 'destabilize' the Trio in the way that H/H would. "So Hermione falls for Ron and. . . what? Harry hangs out around the Owlery a bit more frequently? Harry hangs out with Ginny a bit more frequently, and we get ourselves One Big Happy Weasley Family?" "Ick," interupts Cindy. "Ick indeed. Ron and Hermione get somewhat uncomfortable around each other for a while, then go out to Hogsmeade, snog and live Happily Ever After?" There is a moment of silence. Then the Captain speaks. "Fizzle." "Yeah." Derannimer nods. "Even if you don't like romantic motivations, romantic motivations can motivate you to do something a whole lot more interesting than *that.* I mean, really. Where can you *go,* in terms of Bang, with Ron/Hermione. Do you have a bottle?" "Huh?" "Do you have an empty bottle?" "Um. . . Accio Perrier!" After a minute, a small glass bottle comes whizzing down the shore from the direction of George's Tavern, to slap neatly into Cindy's palm. As the Captain uncorks it, Derannimer notices that that the water inside seems to be bubbling to an unusual degree. Also that there is steam coming out of the bottle's mouth. "Must be imagining it," Derannimer thinks to herself, as the Captain chugs it down. "Now I do," says the Captain, handing the (oddly hot) bottle to Derannimer. "Guess I'll pay George later. What did you want it for, anyway?" Derannimer scribbles the words, "Where can you *go,* in terms of Bang, with Ron/Hermione," onto a piece of paper, stuffs it into the bottle, and Banishes the bottle towards the right-most of the two flying ships. The bottle appears to clonk someone on the head. "I wanted an R/H crewman to answer the question," she replies. "Right, so, where were we?" "Fizzle," Captain Cindy reminds her. "Try H/H." "Why can't *you* try H/H? Why am I doing all of this?" The Captain looks at her. Derannimer looks at the Captain's Big Paddle. "Or not," says Derannimer hastily. "Right then, H/H. "Um. . . better, actually. No one really *expects* it at this point; a lot of people are rooting for it, but no one really expects it. It would be more of a surprise. . . it would shock Harry, really. . . it would cause *immense* problems with Jealous!Ron--Ron really is vulnerable that way, you know. . . it would throw the Trio out of whack. . . yeah, not doing too bad here. "But in the end. . . well, here's the thing. Clearly, the character who would be most profoundly affected by Harry/Hermione would be Ron. It *might* intensify his jealousy, separate him from Harry in a way that could have pretty serious plot consequences later in the story. But the operative word here is "might." If Hermione felt that way about Harry, and Harry felt that way about Hermione, then I honestly do think that Ron would forgive Harry. I don't think he would stand in Harry's way. Ron is immensly loyal." "Well, so. . ." The Captain is waiting rather impatiently. "So?" "H/H is a bit Bangier, and decidedly less sappy, than R/H is. I mean, at least with H/H, you get some. . . some *anger* and *resentment* and *bitterness.* But that is not quite what we are looking for, is it? We need a *Bang.*" Derannimer nods. "I know. How's this then: Hermione feels that way about Harry, and Harry *doesn't* feel that way about Hermione." Comprehension dawns on the Captain's face. "Oh, is this that. . . what is it, Farmer in the Valley thing?" She makes a scoffing noise. "I don't know, it sounds pretty convoluted to me." "It's "Farmer in the Dell," and it is admittedly a touch convoluted. Ron loves Hermione, Hermione loves Harry, Harry couldn't care less. Or, at the most, Harry notices and feels vaguely guilty. "*Ron,* however, feels more than vaguely guilty. Now Captain Cindy, even though I know you don't like romantic motivations, but really. Think about it for a minute. Ronald Weasley, sixth son in a vibrant family of poor over-achievers; never stands out at home--how could anyone, with Bill and Charlie and Fred and George and even Perfect Percy around--never stands out at school, with average grades, and second-hand robes, and a best friend who outshines nearly everyone in a room with pure *talent*, and another best friend who has the best grades in the school. Ronald Weasley, friends with Harry Potter-- Harry who made the Quidditch team as a first year, and is extremely rich, and got the Marauder's Map, although *Ron* was Fred and George's brother, and gets more attention from Mrs. Weasley than her youngest son does, and is just so darn *celebrated,* while Ron is just so darn *obscure.* Now imagine that Ron falls in love with Hermione, which is awkward, and confusing, because she is a friend, and imagine that he *somehow* works up the courage to give her an idea of this, and then we have a restaging of the "Cedric. Cedric Diggory" moment, where a furiously red-faced Hermione rather clumsily (because this is awkward for her too) explains that no, she doesn't like him like that, actually, she likes *Harry* like that, and 'Oh Ron, honestly--I'm your *friend.*' "And then Harry doesn't even *notice,* and continues mooning around Cho like a loony sheep, and poor Ron has to watch the girl he likes being horribly uncomfortable over his best friend, who already has everything in the world (or so it must seem) and who is now *rejecting,* without a second's thought, the thing that Ron so wants. "I mean, how could you *bear* that? Or more to the point, how could *Ron* bear that, Ron who sees himself standing alone in glory in the mirror of Erised, Ron who, as Hermione says, is frequently biting back jealousy of Harry already. "Ooh, no" says Derannimer with an odd sort of relish. "I don't think Ron would deal well with that at *all.* It might be enough to push him over the edge." Captain Cindy really doesn't seem quite convinced. "Yeah, but. . . I'm sorry, I don't care *how* much he's crushing on her, I really don't want to think that Ron would. . . what, *betray Harry?* Just Out of Luv? I don't know, that sounds pretty--" "No,no, not that. I mean, first of all, it wouldn't be out of love, not really. It would be out of jealousy in general; love would just be the final straw. And second of all, I don't see Ron deliberately betraying Harry under any circumstances whatsoever. No. But I can imagine him getting jealous and angry enough to lose his temper and somehow be *fooled* into betraying him. He'd feel utterly hideous about later of course, but the damage would be done." Seeing the still uncertain look on Cindy's face, Derannimer adds, "After all, those are Ron's big faults, aren't they, at this point--jealousy and *hot-headedness.* Those two traits could come together to produce some pretty big problems down the road. Especially with the kind of provocation provided by Farmer in the Dell. "Anyway," Derannimer stands up and brushes the sand off her wetsuit. "It's an idea." She stands there for moment, uncertain, then decides to take the plunge. "Captain Cindy, would you consider signing me on as a crewman on the Big Bang destroyer?" Seeing the look of surprise on the Captain's face, Derannimer starts talking more quickly. "I mean, I know you're a really tyrannical captain and all, and that I'd have to scrub the deck with my toothbrush, and I'm not sure that I agree with all of your past Bang Assessments, and I know that I was arguing with you about Assassin!Snape, but I *really* want to come on board, and I've got an old toothbrush, and I'd carry your Big Paddle for you if you--" hastily backing away from the look on the Captain's face--"but I can quite see that you don't want anyone else carrying your Big Paddle, so forget about that, but. . . *please?*" Derannimer (standing with a hopeful look on her face) From chirohnd at drexel.edu Sat Dec 28 19:51:29 2002 From: chirohnd at drexel.edu (Chirag Desai ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 19:51:29 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48910 > wrote: > >> But CoS? Unless I'm missing something, it seems sort of out in > the > > middle of nowhere. Any thoughts? > > CMC wrote: > > In addition to what's already been mentioned, CoS gives us an > extended intro to The Burrow (thus, a positive nurturing family as > opposed to the hostility in which Harry was raised); the deepest > glimpse so far into the world of the ghosts; the first mention of > Azkaban; the first acting-out of the Wizard's duel (of pivotal > importance to GoF's climax); and the introduction of Aragog - I have > a feeling he, like the Centaurs (fellow FF inhabitants), will have > some significant role to play in the future volumes. 1. There's also the fact that CoS is where we learn that Harry's a Parseltongue..which results in us learning that Harry has a bit of Voldemort in him. (relate this to the 'gleam' in Dumbledore's eye at the end of GoF; Voldemort using Harry's blood obviously has some implications as a result). 2. Not to mention the fact that we learn about Voldemort's passed that is so hushed up in the WW - he really is Tom Riddle, etc. 3. We learn why Hagrid was expelled, that he was innocent, and Riddle framed him. (also as CMC mentioned about Aragog as a result) 4. We also learn clearly about the bitterness existing between Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley; and that Lucius has at least one, and probably more, of Voldemort's old school things (the diary). 5. The use of the polyjuice potion == crouch-as-moody in GoF. 6. The importance of phoenixes (is that the plural?); considering the 5th book is being called "HP and the Order of the Phoenix". 7. Harry is a 'true' Gryffindor..which is a true fuel for theories of him being the heir of Godric Gryffindor. Not to mention, Harry's growth as a character and his belief in himself, and his friendship with Ron and Hermione, and a confidence of sorts in his abilities. IMO, every book in the series so far has been both important and revealing. JKR has shown how she can conceal a lot of hints in clear plain text without revealing them, and how well the books are intervowen for such hints and mysteries to keep clearing up. - Chirag (Love the HRH trio) From sgarfio at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 21:10:18 2002 From: sgarfio at yahoo.com (Sherry Garfio ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:10:18 -0000 Subject: lupin and his transformations... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48911 Sorry for the late reply and slight OT-ishness; I'm quite far behind in reading the recent posts. bboy_mn wrote: > As far as transforming only at night (back to the original question), > I would like to point out that, for those who are very observant, you > will have noticed that the moon is sometimes visible in the late > afternoon in broad daylight. Although, I couldn't swear to the fact > that it's ever full at this time. No, it's never full at this time. The moon's light is reflected sunlight, and its phases are caused by changes in the angle between sun and moon as the moon orbits the Earth. Sometimes the half of the moon that is lit by the sun is not facing us, or is only partially facing us, and we see anything from a sliver to a nearly full circle. In order for the moon to appear full from Earth, it must be directly opposite the sun, with Earth in between, so that the half that is lit by the sun is facing us full on. When the moon is visible during the day, its position in the sky is near the sun, so the sun illuminates it from the side and creates a half moon that will continue to be visible for several hours after sunset. When the moon is full, it rises just as the sun sets and sets just as the sun rises. A diagram would be helpful here (better yet, a basketball and a flashlight), but alas, this is text only. Here's a link to a decent (albeit fairly technical) description and diagram: http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s13.htm and an animated diagram is available here (Java-enabled browser required): http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/java/MoonPhase.html Of course, this proves only that the full moon can't be in the sky during the day. It doesn't say anything about whether Lupin stays transformed during the day. I don't recall the kids ever seeing him on the days that Snape takes his classes. They ask where he is, and Snape tells them he is ill, leading them to put this together with the potion Snape gives him and conclude that Snape is poisoning Lupin. I assumed that Lupin was still curled up in his office in harmless wolf form with the help of the wolfsbane potion. After all, the moon is still full, it's just not visible from Hogwarts. If you want to get astronomical about it (you all know by now that I'm a geek, no sense in trying to hide it), the thing that triggers a werewolf's transformation could be the opposition of the sun and moon, rather than the light of the full moon per se. There are actual gravitational effects associated with this, which is what causes the tides. These effects are present both day and night, because during the day at full moon, the moon is on the other side of the Earth from us, pulling away from the sun. I assume the lore developed from very old superstitions about the full moon, long before any of this was well understood, but it is true that weird things happen during the full moon. There could well be an astronomical explanation. Sherry From suzloua at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 21:11:02 2002 From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:11:02 -0000 Subject: Invisibilty Cloaks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48912 Hmmmm. I understand that Hogwarts has a number of creepy candleabra sconce things hanging around it's walls (and if it doesn't, it flippin well should, what kind of medieval castle doesn't have creepy candleabra sconce things?!) and these should cast if not a huge amount of light, at least a reasonable amount. There are also lots of windows and open spaces and the like, so here is my question. If Mad Eye Moody's magical eye and the Marauder's Map can see Harry in his Cloak, it would indicate that the Cloak is not completely impervious. (It's been hinted in PS and CoS that Dumbledore can even see through it, magical eye or not) So do the same old laws of physics that bind the rest of us bind someone wearing a Cloak? If they can be felt and touched, they obviously don't disappear, they are just concealed. So do they cast a shadow? And if, as I suspect, they do, why doesn't anyone notice?! Just a thought. Susan ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "The Germans are a cruel race. Their operas are six hours long, and they have no word for 'fluffy' " --Edmund Blackadder [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 21:34:02 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:34:02 -0000 Subject: Invisibilty Cloaks; Laws of Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48913 Suan, who probably has watched a lot of Dark Shadows in her time:"I understand that Hogwarts has a number of creepy candleabra sconce things hanging around it's walls (and if it doesn't, it flippin well should, what kind of medieval castle doesn't have creepy candleabra sconce things?!)" I thought it was torches, mostly, but still. (Is the light magically amplified? I've seen torchlight like that, and it's not much at all) Susan:If Mad Eye Moody's magical eye and the Marauder's Map can see Harry in his Cloak, it would indicate that the Cloak is not completely impervious. (It's been hinted in PS and CoS that Dumbledore can even see through it, magical eye or not) So do the same old laws of physics that bind the rest of us bind someone wearing a Cloak?" It's the laws of magic that matter here, not physics. Magic is subject to laws and limits as physics is, but what are they? We don't know of many, except that magic cannot reanimate the dead. Dumbledore can detect Harry without a magic eye, but I'm not sure it says D. can *see* Harry. It could be he detects Harry's aura or senses him in some other way. Other fantasy series set in alternate universes where magic works have approached the problem differently. Some say you can't be invisible, but by a charm prevent people from realizing your presence; other spells prevent people from looking exactly in your direction (which means you could be seen in a mirror, for instance). Jim Ferer From kristen at sanderson-web.com Sat Dec 28 22:05:02 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:05:02 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry (WAS: Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: <20021228181917.26473.qmail@web10302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48914 > I personally Think that Rowling merely used Snape to > act as a pseudo- archenemy for Harry in the first 4 > years, kind of in preperation for the much bigger and > important battles he will face in 5,6,7. I think the > end of the 4th book symbolized the official end of > Snape's unneccesary punishments to Harry. I believe > that Snape served to show how Voldemort's treatment of > Harry is so much worse and villianous than the grudge > that Snape holds against him. I think that Snape will > be one of the strongest anti-Voldemort leaders (His > treatment of Karkaroff; willingness to show dark mark > to Fudge). I also think that after being chased down > by Voldemort himself, Snape will sacrifice himself for > Harry, and that Snape is the "fan of Harry" that > supposively dies in Book 5. In the first 4 books, > Snape definately is hard on Harry during class, but he > definately rewards hard-work, and we never see Harry > complaining about a low grade in Potions. > > Please feel free to respond > -Danny > I don't know that he's a fan...though I'm guessing that he doesn't hate him as much as is thought. At the end of PoA Snape tells Crouch ..."and of course Potter has always been allowed an extraordinary amount of license by the headmaster--...is it good for him to be given so much special treatment? Personally, I try and treat him like any other student." (p 387) Here Snape shows that he disagress with Dumbledore about how to treat Harry. Dumbledore allows him freedom (we find out at the end of Gof) because he knows that Harry must grow up quickly. Snape's opinion of how to treat him is different. Also, as for his being a fan, also from PoA, "Professor Snape...was staring along the staff table at Professor Lupin...but even Harry who hated Snape was startled at the expression twisting his think, sallow face. It was beyond anger: it was loathing. Hary knew that expression only too well; it was the look Snape wore every time he set eyes on Harry." (p. 93) It seems that Snape does dislike Harry for some reason - possibly for the same reason he disliked James and Sirius. I surmise that Snape is on the side of the good, but that doesn't mean he has to like the people he's working with. He has to know that Harry is supposed to be the salvation of the good side (possibly Trelawney's first prediction?), but that doesn't mean he has to fall all over himself to be nice to Harry either. After all, he has probably made huge personal sacrifices for the good side, but will probably get little credit. Someone else mentioned that Snape had to end up liking Harry because otherwise he would end up cartoonish and I agree with that. Snape, like Harry, must grow himself before the end of the 7 books. I think that as he grows we will find out more about him and he will get used to being on the good side and maybe even like the people there. Kristen From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sat Dec 28 22:51:45 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3 ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:51:45 -0000 Subject: Invisibilty Cloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48915 Susan wrote: "If Mad Eye Moody's magical eye and the Marauder's Map can see Harry in his Cloak, it would indicate that the Cloak is not completely impervious. (It's been hinted in PS and CoS that Dumbledore can even see through it, magical eye or not) So do the same old laws of physics that bind the rest of us bind someone wearing a Cloak? If they can be felt and touched, they obviously don't disappear, they are just concealed. So do they cast a shadow? And if, as I suspect, they do, why doesn't anyone notice?!" Another fantasy series I am currently reading (and inpatiently waiting for the next book to come out), The Wheel of Time, has people who can either make themselves invisible, or make themselves appear as someone else (no potions included). They do this by bending light and stuff around them, so that people just don't see them. They also have creatures that appear near invisible becuase someone's eyes just want to slide around them. There is also a cloak that can shift it's colors to make the wearer seem invisible. I'm guessing that the invisibility cloak can refract light and color to make it seem that the person wearing it is not there. They blend in with their surroundings, but still can be felt and touched because they are still there. They don't cast a shadow because of the way the light is bent. -Acire, who is without her trusty lap top and must wait in line to use the house computer. From penny_rabey at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 23:09:54 2002 From: penny_rabey at hotmail.com (pennyspace ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:09:54 -0000 Subject: All Slytherins bad? (was Re: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer " wrote: > Anne:"It was Ron who said, "Everyone knows that there wasn't a witch or > wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin." > > Hagrid said pretty much the same thing, but I don't think in either > case that makes it infallible. Characters, like real people, don't > say things precisely and aren't necessarily right. It's only when the > "narrator" says something that we need to take it as read. > me: The stories are all told from Harry's point of view, and he had this thought in CoS: "Harry well remembered putting it on, exactly one year ago, and waiting, petrified, for its decision as it muttered aloud in his ear. For a few horrible seconds he feared that the hat was going to put him in Slytherin, the house which had turned out more dark witches and wizards than any other-" (chapter 5 The Whomping Willow pg. 61 aussie edition ) According to Harry, Slytherin has turned out *more* dark wizards, than any other, not *all* of them. I think this is a very important distinction, and allows that some dark wizards do come out of other houses, just not as many as Slytherin. Sirius could indeed be in Gryffindor and thought of as a dark wizard. I think Ron and Hagrid's statements are probably generalizations. Perhaps it is the quality of ambition that gives them that drive to succeed, even if it is by dark means. I would assume however, that not all Slytherins would follow that road. I also assume that a student in any one of the other houses might also be ambitious, as well, as brave, clever, loyal, etc. Most people have all these attributes to varying degrees. Look at Hermione :) To have all the dark wizards coming from one house, is, I feel, too simplistic for such a complex and rich story. One of the underlying themes of the book is *choice*. I am sure some Slytherins make the right choice. PennyR From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 23:38:43 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:38:43 -0000 Subject: All Slytherins bad? (was Re: Simple spell origin, Krum, Slytherins, Prefects) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48917 PennyR:"Harry well remembered putting it on, exactly one year ago, and waiting, petrified, for its decision as it muttered aloud in his ear. For a few horrible seconds he feared that the hat was going to put him in Slytherin, the house which had turned out more dark witches and wizards than any other-" Excellent point, and that was said by the narrator, imo, not Harry, who didn't know about dark wizards from any house at that moment. (He hadn't been in the wizard world a full day at that time.) PennyR:"I think Ron and Hagrid's statements are probably eneralizations. Perhaps it is the quality of ambition that give.s them that drive to succeed, even if it is by dark means. I would assume however, that not all Slytherins would follow that road." Precisely. I particularly agree with your last sentence. There's plenty of room for ambition and even ruthlessness while staying on the right side of the law. Look at some of the American executives who always seem to dance on the edge of the legal and ethical knife - sometimes falling off. Why would the wizard world be different? PennyR:"To have all the dark wizards coming from one house, is, I feel, too simplistic for such a complex and rich story. One of the underlying themes of the book is *choice*. I am sure some Slytherins make the right choice." You and I see it just the same way. Snape is a perfect example. Jim Ferer From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sat Dec 28 22:46:28 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:46:28 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48918 Emily, you've asked really good questions. As many of your questions are interrelated and some receive the same answer, I'll just post all of your questions and then give you my answer (changing the order a bit) hopefully not leaving anything out. Let's see: Emily wrote: > This is certainly a very well-researched theory. However, > something about it just doesn't sit right with me. The most > important hole I found in your theory is: why??? Why would James, > and most significantly, Remus, do this? With hindsight being > perfect, we all know that if they *did* do this, then they saved > James' life. But without knowing that James and Lily would be > killed, why take such a drastic measure AND perform the Fidelius > charm? While James and Lily knew they were in danger, did they > really think they were going to die? If they were fighting > Voldemort as many people assume, then they probably faced death > several times and escaped. I think they assumed that they could > hide using the Fidelius charm for a while until the storm blew > over (presumably, they weren't planning on using it indefinitely). > > Second, assuming that James and Lily knew they would die, then a > bluff would be necessary to keep James alive (again, a bluff *in > addition* to the Fidelius charm). Why would Remus agree to take > James' place in death? I understand that James and Lily were > parents, but this is still a very drastic step. And why Remus? Did > Remus deserve to die more than James did? I don't doubt that Remus > would make a sacrifice like this if called upon, but why on earth > would James ever ask this of his friend? > > Third, why Remus, and not Sirius? Or someone else? If James and > Lily were as well-liked as people seem to think, then they > probably had several friends. Again, though, this is assuming > that James would be willing to "sacrifice" one of his friends, and > I really don't understand why he would do that. > > Fourth, why James, and not Lily? Did James deserve to live more > than Lily? If James believed that Lily wouldn't be killed, then > why would Remus swtich with James? If Lily was going to live, > then there wouldn't be the same sense of urgency (i.e., Harry > would not be orphaned, so it's not as though this was a > necessary step to prevent that). Now me: I do not believe that anyone deserved to die or that some lives were more "sacrifice-able" than others (neither did James believe it). I believe there was a plan (of which we only know a few details) and that some things went wrong on the way. But I'll get to that later. Right now I'll try to extract important information from the books (trying to establish the facts first) then I'll use these facts to give you a possible answer to your questions. (All my books are US paperback editions, except for GoF which is Hardcover) We know from the books that Voldemort killed everyone who opposed him and that his reign of terror had lasted about 11 years by the time he tried to kill Baby!Harry, as we find out in a conversation between Dumbledore and McGonagall the night they left Baby!Harry with the Dursleys. (SS/PS Ch. 1, pages 11-12). We later find out a bit more of what was happening near the end of Voldemort's reign of terror. PoA. Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort (Pages 374-375): > "Don't lie!" bellowed Black. "You'd been passing information to > him for a year before Lily and James died! You were his spy!" > > "He - he was taking over everywhere!" gasped Pettigrew. "Wh - what >was there to be gained by refusing him?" > > "What was there to be gained by fighting the most evil wizard who > has ever existed?" said Black, with a terrible fury in his > face. "Only innocent lives, Peter!" > > "You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed > me, Sirius!" > > "Then you should have died!" roared Black. "Died rather than > betray your friends, as we would have done for you!" We realize here that James, Sirius and Remus were willing to give their lives for each other (and for the Rat) if that sacrifice would serve to protect them. Also that Voldemort was the most evil wizard that had ever existed and that he was taking over everywhere. Also, in The Three Broomsticks we overhear (with Harry, Hermione and Ron) a conversation between Hagrid, Madam Rosmerta, Flitwick, Fudge and McGonagall about Black and how the Dementors were all over the place looking for him. Madam Rosmerta still has trouble believing Sirius killed Peter and the other 12 Muggles, (Sorry this will be long): PoA: Ch. 10: The Marauder's Map (Pages203-206) > "You don't know half of it, Rosmerta," said Fudge gruffly. "The > worst he did isn't widely known." > > "The worst?" said Madam Rosmerta, her voice alive with > curiosity. "Worse than murdering all those people you mean?" > > "I certainly do," said Fudge. > > "I can't believe that. What could possibly be worse?" > > "You say you remember him from Hogwarts, Rosmerta," murmured > McGonogall. "Do you remember who his best friend was?" > > "Naturally," said Rosmerta, with a small laugh. "Never saw one > without the other, did you? The number of times I had them in > here -- ooh, they used to make me laugh. Quite the double act, > Sirius Black and James Potter!" > > "Precisely," said McGonagall. "Black and Potter. Ringleaders of > their little gang. Both very bright, of course -- exceptionally > bright, in fact -- but I don't think we've ever had such a pair of > troublemakers ---" > > "I dunno," chuckled Hagrid. "Fred and George Weasley could give 'em > a run fer their money." > > "You'd have thought Black and Potter were brothers!" chimed in > Flitwick. "Inseparable!" > > "Of course they were," said Fudge. "Potter trusted Black beyond > all his other friends" (Goes on saying Black was James best man > and Harry's godfather, and Harry would be tormented if he knew) > > "Because Black turned out to be in league with You-Know-Who?" > whispered Madam Rosmerta > > "Worse even than that, m'dear..." Fudge dropped his voice. "Not > many people are aware that the Potters knew You-Know-Who was after > them. Dumbledore, who of course working tirelessly against > You-Know-Who, had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him > off, and he alerted James and Lily at once. He advised them to go > into hiding. Well, of course, You-Know-Who wasn't an easy person > to hide from. Dumbledore told them that their best chance was the > Fidelius Charm." > > (He then goes on explaining the Fidelius Charm)..."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,..." > > "So Black was the Potters' Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam > Rosmerta. > > "Naturally," said McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that > Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was > planning to go hiding himself... and yet, Dumbledore remained > worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper > himself." > > "He suspected Black?" gasped Madam Rosmerta. > > "He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping > You-Know-Who informed of their movements," said McGonagall. > "Indeed he had suspected for some time that someone on our side > had turned traitor and was passing a lot of information to > You-Know-Who." > > "But James Potter insisted on using Black?" > > "He did," said Fudge heavily. "And then, barely a week after the > Fidelius Charm had been performed -- " > > "Black betrayed them?" breathed Madam Rosmerta. > > "He did indeed..." (Goes on...) > > (at some point Hagrid says it was him who rescued Harry, Sirius > turned up and wanted to take Harry away, Hagrid didn't know at the > time that Sirius had been the Potter's Secret-Keeper) We find out several important things: 1.- Sirius and James were like brothers, always together, they were ringleaders of the gang, exceptionally bright and more troublemakers than George and Fred. 2.- Sirius is James best man and godfather to Harry. 3.- We are introduced to the Fidelius Charm and how it works. 4.- Dumbledore suggested the use of the Fidelius Charm, even suggested to be the Secret-Keeper, but James decided it to be Sirius, because being his best friend, he would rather die than betray James. 5.- We find out that Sirius was the Secret-Keeper (although we later learn that it was the Rat). 6.- We find out that very few people knew that the Fidelius Charm was cast, and that Sirius was blamed of betrayal of his best friend (other than the death of the others including the Rat). 7.- We find out that few people knew that Voldemort was after the Potters 8.- Someone very close to the Potters was a traitor and was passing out information to Voldemort (from the Shrieking Shack scene, we figure out that this had been going on for about a year). 9.- Not even Hagrid (being someone Dumbledore trusted his life to) knew about the Fidelius Charm. Now let's review what Harry sees when the Dementors arrive at the Quidditch game where he falls off his Nimbus (and Cedric catches the snitch): PoA: Ch. 9: Grim Defeat (page179) > And he heard it again... Someone was screaming, screaming inside > his head... a woman... > > "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" > > "Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now..." > > "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -- " > (SNIP) > "Not Harry! Please... have mercy... have mercy..." > > A shrill voice was laughing, the woman was screaming, and Harry > knew no more. Do you realize that the No-Remorse-In-Killing Voldemort "asked" Lily to "Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now..."? What was that all about? Lily begged for Harry's life, but Voldemort didn't just AK her to get to Harry, he asked her to stand aside first. Voldemort was more interested in killing Harry than in killing Lily. He just killed Lily because she refused to give up Harry, not because it was his goal, otherwise he could just have entered the room, AK'd Lily and then Harry. No need to say a word to Lily. OK, let's put this all together into a possible explanation to your questions: The Potters find out that Voldemort is after them, and during the last year someone very close to them (which they trust) is betraying them, but they have no idea who it could be. It seems that the only person they can only truly trust is Dumbledore, and James trusts Sirius to the point of wanting only him to be his Secret Keeper (although Dumbledore is uneasy about it). Yes they could hide forever, but there is this little problem of having a traitor in the small group of people who dare stand up to Voldemort, they were losing the fight, many were killed and it seemed no one could stop Voldemort. James is a really bright guy, was a troublemaker at school, possibly a bit arrogant (if we are to believe Snape), and used to break some rules (they created the Marauder's Map after all). He decided he had to do something. Yes he could hide, but maybe he was feeling like a coward. I doubt that it was a matter of waiting till the storm blew off. Voldemort isn't the type of guy to let someone escape him, Voldemort is "very" arrogant, he would hunt them down, killing whoever stood in his way (it was called the reign of terror, people didn't even dare say his name). Maybe James decided he had to do something to track the traitor down, maybe he wanted to be able to move around freely protecting his family from the outside. Maybe he was afraid that although Sirius was planning to hide, he would be caught and forced by a Memory Charm (look how Bertha's brain got messed) or an Imperius Curse to give up the Potter's location. Maybe James was planning to get close to the traitor, a Death Eater or Voldemort "bluffing" them and then perform his superior spells (Great wizard after all). If you are those who believe either (or both) Godric Gryffindor or Dumbledore are James ancestors and James knew or suspected it, great bluff, huh? Gets close, performs his magic and goodbye Voldemort. (And he gets to protect his wife and son while he's at it). (I believe magic is more associated to the soul than to the body). Maybe the Switching of bodies took place BEFORE Dumbledore found out (by one of his spies) that Voldemort was after the Potters. So Dumbledore, James, Remus (bodies switched), Lily and Sirius knew that the Fidelius Charm was to be cast (only maybe Sirius didn't know about James and Remus's switching). They carry on with the Fidelius Charm, only that Real!James (in Lupin's body) doesn't know that the Secret-Keeper is the Rat. Remember Ollivander said that James wand was good for transfiguration, so maybe Remus and James were experimenting or learning this new improved Switching Spell before Voldemort decided to hunt the Potters. For some reason they decided to keep their bodies switched (for the reasons mentioned above). Or maybe Sirius did know about the ability to switch bodies, and even had practiced it, but thought that by the time James died, James was in his body. Remember Wizards have ways that we don't have (lucky them!), even the Polyjuice Potion. Maybe James wanted an alternative plan in case Sirius turned out to be the traitor. Or that someone using the Polyjuice Potion was impersonating Sirius. I believe that he thought he could never be too careful (I don't know if that phrase came out right). James needed to plan ahead several steps (like a Chess game). He's not the type to just sit down, hiding calmly while others die to protect him. There are many possible explanations, you pick one that suits you the most or create a new one, but I think you'll agree with me that he couldn't just sit there and do nothing. He had to do something. Remember that we don't know what his job was (neither Lily's), JKR said in a chat (sorry, can't find which one, but I read it yesterday) we will find out more about James and Lily's job in Book 5, she also said that James inherited a lot of money from his father as well as the Invisibility Cloak. So James comes up with this plan to switch bodies with Remus (or maybe it's Remus's idea), as maybe it is so difficult to do or it's a spell they invented, nobody would think of it. Remus accepted to do it, he knows the risks involved. Remus in James body doesn't turn into a werewolf (as this is a biological condition), so Lily and Harry are in no danger to be bitten by a werewolf. The effect of switching bodies is longer than the Polyjuice Potion. Maybe the switch was intended for a certain period of time only. Then the Fidelius Charm was cast and a few days later the Rat betrayed the Potters and Lily and Remus (in James body) were murdered. It wasn't planned that way. It just happened. It wasn't James intention to let Remus die for him. Where was Lupin when all of this happened? Not even Lupin in canon tells us. (and the kids don't ask). We have no idea where he was. I wonder if that Halloween night was full moon and Lupin's body was in his werewolf phase, James not being able to save his family, even though it was his intention in case the Fidelius Charm failed. Yes it was a dark period and the risk of being killed was constant, everywhere and every day to everyone. Not just by Voldemort but by one of the Death Eaters. There are still MANY things we don't know about what happened that night. This and Harry surviving, is the main mystery in the books. Where was Lupin? Where did James die? Why was the house burned? What protected Harry and "evaporated" Voldemort? Why are the Potter boys so important? Why Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily? I know that this theory is a little wild and that there is no strong canon support to it, but there is no strong canon that says it is not possible. I believe it is still valid as a theory and we need more input to validate or toss it away. It's just a theory, I'm not trying to prove that it happened as we don't have enough information; I'm just trying to prove by canon that it is posible. I hope that the explanation I've just given you sounds convincing enough to make you believe it's possible (not to convince you that it is what happened). I hope I have answered your questions clearly enough: 1.- I do NOT believe that the purpose of switching bodies was to save James life. 2.- I believe there was another plan for the "Switching" and that things went horribly wrong. James alive in Lupin's body is a consequence of what went wrong, not as the reason for the switching. 3.- No life is more "sacrifice-able" than another, at least not to the good guys. 4.- Very few people knew Voldemort was after the Potters, and someone very close to the Potters was betraying them. So James couldn't have asked just anyone to switch with him. Imagine he switches with a Death Eater or a spy (without knowing it) this FakeJames kills Lily and Harry without any problem. 5.- For some weird reason, Lily isn't Voldemort's target; he was willing to spare her (I believe this is what has lead many people to believe that Lily and Voldemort are blood related or that Lily descends from Salazar Slytherin). 6.- Sirius was already picked for the Fidelius Charm, so it wasn't a good idea to pick him for the Switching. 7.- Lily's wand is good for charms and James is good for transfiguration. So James transfigured and Lily charmed, they each did their part. :-) 8.- In the reign of terror, everyone is in danger and susceptible to die. Imagine complete anarchism in your society (if you can). You just prepare yourself the best you can, keeping contingency plans. But you can't control nor cover everything so things probably go wrong at some point. Oh, yes, just one note: Heidi kindly hinted me the chats where JKR states that James and Lily are dead. Heidi wrote: > She gets quite exercised if people tell her they think Harry's dead > parents are going to come back to life at the end of book seven. > "We've had petrified people, and we've had what would have been > fatal injuries, but once you're dead you're dead. No magic power > can resurrect a truly dead person." > http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4037903,00.html > > Rowling: Harry has already dealt with death, of course. He lost his > parents very young, in book four he witnessed a murder, which is a > very disturbing thing. So this is not news to anybody who has been > following the series, that death is a central theme of the books. > But, yes, I think it would be fair to say that in book five he has > to examine exactly what death means, in even closer ways. But I > don't think people who have been following the series will be that > surprised by that. >http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/books/rowling_001023. html > > I think her statement that Harry "lost his parents very young" > and "once you're dead you're dead" make it clear to some that > she's saying that Harry's parents are positively dead and will not > come back to life as living people. Indeed it seems that JKR states that James and Lily are positively dead as they can not resurrect. But if you look closely, these statements do not contradict my theory, by the following interpretations: > Once you're dead you're dead. James body died taking Lupin's soul with him. No way to reverse that. >Harry lost his parents very young. Harry did not have the chance to grow up with his parents. Besides, in a way you could say that James in Lupin's body isn't (emotionally) the same James before Voldemort attacked. (I know, it's a bit technical). JKR has a way of being enigmatic with her words. We know she avoids saying much in interviews as she would give important clues away. She also stated she is amazed that nobody is worried about Hermione's safety and that she feels we readers are too confident that Harry will survive in the 7th book. How are you so sure Harry won't die? I personally wouldn't take that question (which she has made in several interviews) as a hint to believe Harry will die in Book 7. She loves to mislead us: Snape seemed the bad guy in SS/PS, Sirius seemed the bad guy in PoA, etc. Um, if I sounded a bit harsh at some point I apologize as it wasn't my intention. Heidi: Thank you Emily: I hope I managed to answer all your questions in a satisfying way. Now I'm going to try (or maybe tomorrow) and tackle Laurasia's brilliant Time Travel essay, which gave me a headache last night (no just kidding, I was really tired to pay much attention, but I did understand it). Cheers to all Sharana From rbroeker at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 23:46:57 2002 From: rbroeker at hotmail.com (beccafran ) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:46:57 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - Riddle connection? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48919 I recently re-read CoS, and there was one thing I couldn't figure out. What is the connection between Voldemort and Diary!Riddle? When I read the book the first time, I had the distinct impression that this was not actually LV himself, but rather a sixteen year old version of him that was preserved in the diary. Kind of a second version of LV, just like there were two versions of Harry and Hermione during the time-turner sequence at the end of PoA. However, Diary!Riddle seems to be aware of what is going on with Voldemort, wanting to regain a body and finish off Harry, both things that the *actual* LV dearly wants to do. Did Diary!Riddle find out about Voldemort's situation from Ginny or perhaps Lucius Malfoy, or is he somehow in contact with Voldemort himself? Any ideas? BeccaFran From carmenharms at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 00:02:50 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:02:50 -0000 Subject: CoS irrelevant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48920 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grindieloe " wrote: > > JK doesn't seem to write anything without a hint to a deeper > meaning/understanding/plot to come in the future. > grindieloe One such hint, which I believe will prove to be important, is found in Tom Riddle's musings on the likenesses between Harry and himself: "...There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself. We even *look* something alike..." Now his statement that they're both half-bloods is inaccurate: Lily Evans Potter was Muggle-born, but she was still a witch. Perhaps he is so prejudiced against Muggle-borns that he considers them no better than Muggles... or maybe this is one of those mistakes thrown in deliberately to call attention to itself. Even more significant, in my opinion, is Riddle's statement "We even *look* something alike." He just tosses that off so casually, and goes on to the more compelling (to him) question of why his future self couldn't defeat baby Harry. Again, maybe it's nothing. We shall see, shall we not? --snazzzybird, eager to see what will eventuate. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 00:14:46 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:14:46 -0000 Subject: DE names In-Reply-To: <19c.e5a6681.2b3ef757@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lynx412 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/28/02 5:21:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, > kewiromeo at a... writes: > > > > One last thing. In GoF when Karkarof is being interogated in front > > of the ministry he claims that Voldermort solely knows the names > > of all the Death Eaters. When they return to his side he simply > > introduces them all. > > Actually, I commented on this before. I suspect that Voldemort was > publicly giving out the names of those DEs who got off by claiming > to have been Imperio'd. ... ... ... I think LV called them by name > to keep them from making that claim again. They would not have come > if they'd only obeyed him due to Imperio. > > Cheryl bboy_mn adds: Excellent thought Cheryl, most excellent. Voldemort 'outed' them. I want to add one other point and that is, that I think there are many levels of Death Eaters and Voldemort supporters. I think what we are seeing is not the sum total of all Death Eaters, but Voldemort's inner most circle; his 'lieutenants' (or Generals, if you prefer). I think there are many other's who would be classified as rank and file Death Eaters. They follow Voldemort's orders but they aren't priviledged to his inner circle, and may never actually see or talk to him. Then we have the general Voldemort supporters. Not people who are actively or significantly involved, but who support Voldemort, and would assist him in any way they could. A certain percentage of these are people who simply aligned with what they thought would be the winning side. Others cooperated because it was the safest thing to do. So, I think there are more active Death Eaters out there, but they are minor or secondary Death Eaters; not priviledged to have the Dark Mark. Remember the crowded that gathered around at the Quidditch World Cup? It wasn't just the masked Death Eaters, many other witches and wizards join the marching group. Certainly, these people recognized the masked Death Eaters. These masks had to be very significant in their association with Voldemort, so people, especially older people, had to know what they stood for, and they chose to join the group. I will admit, as always, there were a certain number of people who were involved who were simply weak minded people caught up in the mob mentality, but that's not enough to account for them all. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 00:33:01 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:33:01 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - Riddle connection? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48922 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beccafran " wrote: > I recently re-read CoS, and there was one thing I couldn't figure > out. What is the connection between Voldemort and Diary!Riddle? > > When I read the book the first time, I had the distinct impression > that this was not actually LV himself, but rather a sixteen year old > version of him that was preserved in the diary. ...edited.... > > However, Diary!Riddle seems to be aware of what is going on with > Voldemort, ...edited... > > Any ideas? > > BeccaFran bboy_mn adds: Diary!Riddle had no more knowledge than the original Riddle when he created the diary, but Ginny had been writing in the diary to Diary!Riddle for almost a year (a school year) and since Ginny was infatuated with Harry, she wrote a lot about Harry. Once Diary!Riddle had some basic information about Harry, I'm sure he steared the conversation in that direction until he had enough to know the details of what happened between Harry and Voldemort. Diary!Riddle was a unique self-contained entity who was bringing himself back to life by stealing Ginny's lifeforce. He was not in contact with the true Voldemort, nor did they share knowledge beyond what Riddle knew at age 16 and the data that Ginny fed him. Had he lived, he could and probably would have grown up to be a whole new Voldemort; sort of, Voldemort II. It would have still been possible for the original Voldemort to regain his body, and then there would have been two Voldemorts; an old one and a young one. That certainly would have been something to see. Who knows, it could still happen. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 01:35:35 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:35:35 -0000 Subject: Dobby's Sock Present Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48923 I believe that this hasn't been discussed before. GoF (US, hardcover): Ch. 23: The Yule Ball (page 409) > Dobby now handed Harry a small package, which turned out > to be -- socks. > > "Dobby is making them himself, sir!" the elf said happily. > "He is buying the wool out of his wages, sir!" > > The left sock was bright red and had a pattern of broomsticks > upon it; the right sock was green with a pattern of Snitches. Dobby is a house elf, very powerful creatures, which don't need wands to perform magic and are capable of appearing and disappearing inside Hogwarts, even though you cannot Apparate or Dissapparate (see Hogwarts, A History). Harry put on his new socks for the Yule Ball: GoF: Ch 23: The Yule Ball (page 420) > "Nice socks, Potter," Moody growled as he passed, his magical > eye staring through Harry's robes. > > "Oh, yeah, Dobby the house-elf knitted them for me," said > Harry grinning. We find out that Mad-Eye Moody is really Crouch Jr., responsible of sending Harry to Voldemort. Crouch Jr. is Voldemort's faithful servant (page 652) and he has already reentered his service (page 651). I think it is reasonable to believe Crouch knows important things concerning Voldemort. Many people believe that Harry and James are descendents of Godric Gryffindor and that Lily is descendent of Salazar Slytherin. Red is Gryffindor's color and green is Slytherin's color. 1.- Could it be that Dobby knows that Harry is a descendent of both Gryffindor and Slytherin? 2.- Maybe those socks have some magic in it? (As Dobby made them himself with the money he earned) 3.- Only Moody made a remark about Harry's socks, does he know something (and Voldemort) about Harry's heritage? It seems to me that Dobby's gift to Harry is a clue, meaning he is both a Gryffindor and Slytherin descendent.. Some thoughts, anyone? Sharana From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 02:40:07 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:40:07 -0000 Subject: Dobby's Sock Present In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote: > I believe that this hasn't been discussed before. > > GoF (US, hardcover): Ch. 23: The Yule Ball (page 409) > > ...Dobby give Harry socks... > > > > The left sock was bright red and had a pattern of broomsticks > > upon it; the right sock was green with a pattern of Snitches. > > ...edited... > > Many people believe that Harry and James are descendents of Godric > Gryffindor and that Lily is descendent of Salazar Slytherin. Red is > Gryffindor's color and green is Slytherin's color. > > 1.- Could it be that Dobby knows that Harry is a descendent of both > Gryffindor and Slytherin? > 2.- Maybe those socks have some magic in it? (As Dobby made them > himself with the money he earned) > 3.- Only Moody made a remark about Harry's socks, does he know > something (and Voldemort) about Harry's heritage? > > It seems to me that Dobby's gift to Harry is a clue, meaning he is > both a Gryffindor and Slytherin descendent.. > > Some thoughts, anyone? > > Sharana bboy_mn: 4.- It was Christmas and Dobby gave Harry Christmas colored socks. Red and Green are colors associated with Christmas in the US. Although, this wouldn't be the first time Dobby dropped a hint that went completely over my head. I think the Gryffindor association is easy to make and is known my several people. But, I think that very very few or less know about the Slytherin connection, if there is one. I think, if it exists, it will become known by a random sequence of events. Only then will deep reflection and analysis reveal the truth of it. It is an interesting theory. Perhaps the first time in history that the direct bloodlines of Gryffindor and Slytherin have intersected, and the result is one of the most powerful wizards to ever exist. I like it, I'm just not sure if I believe it. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 02:39:51 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:39:51 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA (was: Lupin is James - time travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48925 Constance Vigilance wrote: >This is where I have a problem. Hermione WAS seen time traveling. >Everybody in all her classes saw her, and commented on it. "How is >she doing it? She hasn't missed any (simultaneous) classes?" >(Paraphrased) Wasn't this breaking the rules? Or did they mean that >no one should see two copies of someone? But then they wouldn't have >needed to hide from tipsy Hagrid because he could only see them once. I went through the Chapter 21; "Hermione's Secret' and I found several different reasons why time-turned people must not be seen in each individual circumstance. "You must not be seen." Dumbledore says: "But remember this, both of you. You must not be seen. Miss Granger you know the law - you know what is at stake ... You - must - not - be -seen." He refers to 'the law.' The only other reference we have to the time- travelling law is from Hermione. She says: "We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - " The law is pretty much- No-one can change time, regardless of the circumstances. Dumbledore mentions the law, and tells them not to be seen. So, essentially, Dumbledore expects them to have to change time, and is really saying- You're going to have to break the rules big time here, just don't get caught doing it! If anyone sees you changing time you're going to be sent of to Azkaban for life (or something equally horrendous- this is 'one of the most important wizarding laws after all!). Of course, this is where it gets tricky, as, after all, Harry and Hermione *didn't* change time. In fact, they actually ensured that it happened correctly. Dumbledore knew that Beaky had escaped- he was there. So by hinting to H/H that they need to save Buckbeak doesn't require any changing of time. Secondly, Macnair and the Dementor hadn't met Sirius yet, meaning that H/H saving him wasn't changing the past- it was changing the future. In this case 'you must not be seen' isn't directly related to simply going back in time, it is related more to incidents where you intend to *change* time. But, like I said, H/H *didn't* change time, they let it run smoothly to schedule- Buckbeak's disappearance, the Patronus that saved all their lives... Perhaps then Dumbledore's warning was to deter H/H (specifically Harry) from doing anything that wasn't part of the plan (trying to catch Wormtail in Hagrid's hut, trying to catch Wormtail when he escaped and is running around the forest, trying to take the invisibly cloak so that Snape couldn't use it). Had anything like that happened the events of the night would have changed dramatically and there's no guarantee that Harry and Hermione would have ever made it into the safety of the hospital wing and be able to go back in time in the first place (oh, this is doing my head in...). Dumbledore also says to Harry the next day: "Hasn't your experience with the Time-Turner taught you anything, Harry? The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed..." Which is saying, even the smallest change can make a massive difference in the scheme of things. An example of this is seen in the PoA when Harry says he's going to grab the cloak- but at that moment an inebriated Hagrid appears and Buckbeak strains to get near him. In this instance, if Harry had gotten the cloak, Buckbeak would have escaped to Hagrid, and if Sirius was caught they'd have no way of saving him. (Of course, I'm sure it's debatable that if Harry had taken the cloak there would be no need for Beaky as Sirius would've been proved innocent! ;D ) When H2/H2 run around trying to get to Buckbeak they hide the whole time trying to stay out if sight. Hermione says: "If anyone's looking out of a window - " When you think about it, it's no big deal if anyone sees Harry and Hermione, as the other Harry and Hermione are hidden under the cloak, so there's no "Oh dear- there's two of the same people running out there on the lawn." But the reason that they were wearing the cloak in the first place because what they were doing was against the rules- sneaking around after school hours out of bounds and with an alleged murderer on the loose. Had, say, Prof. McGonagall been looking out of the window she would have marched down and deducted about 50 house points and then sent them back off the Gryffindor tower with a detention. This, you could say, would slightly inconvenience the plan of saving Sirius *g* So, you could say that when Harry and Hermione hide they're actually trying to avoid being seen *not* as a precaution against the Time-Turner rules, but as a precaution against the Hogwarts disciplinary rules. Then there's another 'you must not be seen' instance. This one is to avoid a person seeing themself. Hermione clarifies why this would be a disaster: 'Harry, what do you think you'd do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid's house?' said Hermione. 'I'd - I'd think I'd gone mad,' said Harry, 'or I'd think there was some dark magic going on-' 'Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself!" This would be the same for an incident where a person saw the same person twice in the same environment (as Hagrid might if Harry really did come bursting into his hut). Then, there's the type of incident Constance Viligence brought up. Two different people seeing Hermione at the same time in different places and conferring about it. Ron and Harry *know* that Hermione has been to all her classes- she's been seen in all of them by all her classmates. And she doesn't try to hide in them. She was seen by everyone, but nothing bad happened- because she wasn't trying to change time, because the school's disciplinary system (Prof. McGonagall at least) *knew* that there would be two of her running around (and, presumably, she wasn't doing anything against the rules anyway), and if she saw herself she *would* understand- she wouldn't try to attack herself or think she'd gone mad, she would understand perfectly that she'd gone back in time. So long as Hermione made sure she was never seen in the same place twice, none of her classmates could *really* be sure that she was actually in every single class simultaneously- it was only Ernie MacMillan's word after all. So, the way I see it, as long as none of her classmates were in two places at once, she could be. The idea being that the less you use the Time- Turner, and the less turns each time you do use it, the lesser the chance people seeing four of your running around the school in all different directions. Once anyone found out about it (and if they didn't assume Dark Magic and try to hex you) no doubt they'd all be wanting a go- look at how grumpy and disappointed Ron is when Hermione hands it in. That's why Hermione was lying about having a Time-Turner and Prof. McGonagall made her promise not to tell anyone- because not everyone else would be extra careful and only use it for their studies. Basically, it was in Hermione's best interest not to be seen in class, but as that's impossible, it's best to deny that there's anything weird or magical going on- just hard work Which sums up all the ideas I have about the "You must not be seen" rule. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 29 09:31:50 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 09:31:50 -0000 Subject: lion-eagle/Map/V changing wand/prefects/DE names/halfblood/TMR-Harry resemb Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48926 Theresnothingtoit wrote: << Why is the symbol of Gryffindor a lion and not a griffen? (snip) why is the symbol of *raven*claw an eagal? >> IIRC someone wrote a long time ago that this is normal heraldry: the lion and the eagle are the royal animals, king of beasts and king of birds, so proud people choose them for their arms. Kristen wrote: << It is also possible that the map was still in Sirius's file when the twins found it. They only saw something sticking out and didn't notice where it was located. >> In PoA, the twins said: "we couldn't help noticing a drawer in one of his filing cabinets marked Confiscated and Highly Dangerous. (snip) I whipped the drawer open, and grabbed -- this." jmho asked: <> Ollivander said: "We use unicorn hairs, phoenix tail feathers, and the heartstrings of dragons. No two Ollivander wands are the same, just as no two unicorns, dragons, or phoenixes are quite the same. And of course, you will never get such good results with another wizard's wand." He *didn't* say that there is only one wand that each wizard can use. I think it's like shoes: the wand has to fit the particular wizard's magic like the shoes have to fit the particular wizard's feet. So Voldemort could possibly get a better wand, or at least one equally as good and not containing Fawkes's feather, maybe by having a wand custom-made to suit him, IF wand-makers can control the "fit" of the wand they're making and IF he can find an adequately skilled Dark Side wand-maker. Tzvi of Brooklyn asked: << We are all pretty sure that Hermione will be made prefect. Are there only one prefect per year? However, we all know Harry is always special. Does this mean that he won't be made prefect? >> I believe the theory that there is one boy prefect and one girl prefect for each House in each year. So if Harry is the Gryffindor boy prefect for Class of 1998, that means Ron isn't: one more thing for him to be jealous about. Otoh, we did have Molly complaining that Fred and George hadn't been made prefects; if Fred and George were less troublesome OR had better grades, would the school authorities have flipped a coin for which one to make prefect? Or made an exception for twins by choosing TWO prefects? For that matter, if Fred and George had been able to put their names into the Goblet of Fire, could it have chosen one of them without the other as Champion? Tzvi of Brooklyn wrote: << he claims that Voldermort solely knows the names of all the Death Eaters. When they return to his side he simply introduces them all. >> He didn't introduce ALL of them, only the ones who had already been charged and cleared. We have Fudge's word for the latter: "You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago!" and the narrator's word for the former: "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others and spoke to them." Snazzzybird wrote: << Now his statement that they're both half-bloods is inaccurate: Lily Evans Potter was Muggle-born, but she was still a witch.>> GoF, the chapter where Hagrid is outed as half-giant, when the Trio go to visit him hiding in his hut, Hagrid said to Harry: "I'd love yeh ter win, I really would. It'd show 'em all ... yeh don't have to be pureblood ter do it." Snazzzybird quoted Tom Riddle to Harry: << "We even *look* something alike." >> If TMR and Harry's resemblance indicates that they're related, then they must be related through JAMES, because everyone is always going on about how much Harry resembles his father... H'mm. Maybe why Voldemort was eager to kill James and Harry and not insistent on killing Lily is because the prophecy said he would be destroyed by his own descendent... That would have to be a separate prophecy, not the one about a boy born in summer of 1980 who will have special powers or win the war for his father's side or whatever, that inspired Voldemort to order his followers to procreate... altho' since the only Death Eater children we know about in Harry's year are Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, a Nott is sorted, and it could be that one of the illegible Ms on JKR's list of students is MacNair, it occured to me that it might have been LUCIUS rather than Voldemort who discovered the prophecy and ordered his followers (a subset of V's followers) to procreate. I don't KNOW that Nott and MacNair are Lucius's followers; the circle in the graveyard has Nott standing in Goyle's huge shadow, and perhaps MacNair right on the other side of Crabbe, but Lucius is separated from them at least by a gap that should contain the Lestranges... From jonmayes at hotmail.com Sun Dec 29 03:20:06 2002 From: jonmayes at hotmail.com (jcminjapan ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 03:20:06 -0000 Subject: Dobby's Sock Present In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " > wrote: > > I believe that this hasn't been discussed before. > > > > GoF (US, hardcover): Ch. 23: The Yule Ball (page 409) > > > ...Dobby give Harry socks... > > > > > > The left sock was bright red and had a pattern of broomsticks > > > upon it; the right sock was green with a pattern of Snitches. > > > ...edited... > > > > Many people believe that Harry and James are descendents of Godric > > Gryffindor and that Lily is descendent of Salazar Slytherin. Red is > > Gryffindor's color and green is Slytherin's color. > > > > 1.- Could it be that Dobby knows that Harry is a descendent of both > > Gryffindor and Slytherin? > > 2.- Maybe those socks have some magic in it? (As Dobby made them > > himself with the money he earned) > > 3.- Only Moody made a remark about Harry's socks, does he know > > something (and Voldemort) about Harry's heritage? > > > > It seems to me that Dobby's gift to Harry is a clue, meaning he is > > both a Gryffindor and Slytherin descendent.. > > > > Some thoughts, anyone? > > > > Sharana > > > bboy_mn: > > 4.- It was Christmas and Dobby gave Harry Christmas colored socks. Red > and Green are colors associated with Christmas in the US. > > Although, this wouldn't be the first time Dobby dropped a hint that > went completely over my head. > > I think the Gryffindor association is easy to make and is known my > several people. But, I think that very very few or less know about the > Slytherin connection, if there is one. I think, if it exists, it will > become known by a random sequence of events. Only then will deep > reflection and analysis reveal the truth of it. > > It is an interesting theory. Perhaps the first time in history that > the direct bloodlines of Gryffindor and Slytherin have intersected, > and the result is one of the most powerful wizards to ever exist. > > I like it, I'm just not sure if I believe it. > > Just a few thoughts. > > bboy_mn Well, thinking about the color thing, I started to investigate a little. I found this interesting interview on the BBC..... >From BBC Fall 2000 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? J.K. Rowling: 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 Lilly Potter's eyes? JKR: Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm going to say no more. Very clever. Ok, here is a little (very little investigation on the characters that I could find eye colors about) Harry Potter : Green Lilly Potter : Green Prof. Dumbledore : Light Blue Voldemort : Red Snape : Black Gryffindor - scarlet and gold Slytherin - dark green and silver grey Ravenclaw - blue and bronze Hufflepuff - yellow and black Avada Kedavra produces a flash of GREEN light, would that have something to do with his green eyes? I that why it could not kill harry? but, then it would not explain why it killed Lilly though... but maybe there is something I have missed about little harry..... too bad he does not have red hair..... that would really throw in an interesting plot... ha ha hmmm, from what JKR says? Could the socks mean something? Gryffindor is red and one sock is red....... Slytherin is green and one sock is green. The sorting hat had problems placing him in either house. Harrys eyes are green and so where his mothers. Voldemort had red eyes.... hmmmmmmmm could all of this lead up to something? I have no idea, just adding a little bit to ponder more into this subject...... I am still looking into this has anyone else noticed anything more? JCMinJapan: aka Jon From rbroeker at hotmail.com Sun Dec 29 04:31:24 2002 From: rbroeker at hotmail.com (beccafran ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 04:31:24 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA (was: Lupin is James - time travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen " wrote: > When H2/H2 run around trying to get to Buckbeak they hide the whole > time trying to stay out if sight. Hermione says: "If anyone's looking > out of a window - " When you think about it, it's no big deal if > anyone sees Harry and Hermione, as the other Harry and Hermione are > hidden under the cloak, so there's no "Oh dear- there's two of the > same people running out there on the lawn." > So long as Hermione made sure > she was never seen in the same place twice, none of her classmates > could *really* be sure that she was actually in every single class > simultaneously- it was only Ernie MacMillan's word after all. So, the > way I see it, as long as none of her classmates were in two places at > once, she could be. I found something very interesting in the scene in the Shrieking Shack that relates to this issue... Lupin is consulting the Marauder's Map. Here's the passage: "'The number of times I saw James disappearing under it...' said Lupin, waving an impatient hand again. 'The point is, even if you're wearing an Invisibility Cloak, you still show up on the Marauder's Map. I watched you cross the grounds and enter Hagrid's hut. Twenty minutes later, you left Hagrid, and set off back toward the castle. But you were now accompanied by somebody else.' 'What?' said Harry. 'No, we weren't!' "I couldn't believe my eyes," said Lupin, still pacing, and ignoring Harry's interruption. *'I thought the map must be malfunctioning.* How could he be with you?'" (p. 347, American paperback ed.) -- emphasis mine Later, Lupin says, "They've--got--a--right--to--know-- everything! ... Ron's kept him as a pet! There are parts of it even I don't understand!" (p. 350) So Lupin was consulting the Marauder's Map, and saw HHR go down to Hagrid's hut. While all that was going on, however, Harry2 and Hermione2 were hiding outside Hagrid's hut and freeing Buckbeak. Did Lupin see this on the map? It sure sounds to me like he did, and I think that's what he's referring to when he says "there are parts of it even I don't understand." He obviously understands just fine that Pettigrew was Ron's pet in rat form. He must have "thought the map must be malfunctioning" because he saw H2 and H2 on it. Just some thoughts... Could this turn out to have significance in a later novel? What is the significance, if any, in PoA? BeccaFran From fbrown at acay.com.au Sun Dec 29 07:13:17 2002 From: fbrown at acay.com.au (Fiona) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 18:13:17 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Addressing a friend. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021228044122.02640490@mail.societyhappens.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48929 Tzvi of Brooklyn wrote: >"Fancy seeing you here Professor McGonagall" says Dumbledore in chapter one >of PS/SS. Does anyone else find this strange that he would call her by her >teaching name. He calls her Minerva, he calls Madam Pomfrey, Poppy. So why >would he address her like that? I am a teacher and my colleagues and I often refer to each other by our "teaching names" when we are being ironic, a bit sarcastic or pretending to be formal. And, of course, always in front of the children. Fiona [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 08:06:52 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:06:52 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA (was: Re: Lupin is James and Time Travel) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48930 Laurasia, Amazingly (IMO), you wrote about 3 types of time travel, gave some examples and then made some conclusions. Laurasia's 3 theories of time travel are: Laurasia wrote: > 1) That every time one goes back in time they actually travel into > a parallel universe (that is, they create a loop of the world > they were in). The future forms of a person don't exist in the > initial world. > 2) That every time one goes back in time they actually travel into > a parallel universe (creating a loop). The future forms of a > person don't exist in the initial world, but other people > (person-X) takes on the roles of what they will do in the > future. > 3) The third theory of time-travel is much simpler. That is, > everything happened only once. When you go back in time you > don't enter a parallel world, you go back to the initial one, > and future forms on one self are free to interact with the > events of the past. Laurasia wrote: > The Time-turner (presumably) can't discriminate if when you go > back in time you will be in a life-threatening situation, so > should treat all the same I completely agree with you on this. All this discussion started because I was trying to establish the possibility that Lupin (James) was really the one who Harry saw casting the Patronus when he was about to be kissed. I wish to go back to this, and I would appreciate it if you can explain to me how the loop started (using your Theory number 3) as you say you think suits best. Laurasia wrote: About Theory 1 > So, if you take this to be the type of time travel used in PoA, it > means that in the Buckbeak was initially executed, as Future Harry > and Hermione didn't exist yet. This phases no real problems as > H2/H2 rescue him in the second existence and the actions of the > executioner match what was originally heard anyway. However, it > would also mean that Harry was indeed soul-sucked by the Dementor. > This is where this theory of time-travel doesn't match the events > of the book, as it would mean that Harry effectively 'died.' Which > would mean that he couldn't go back in time later to save himself, > Hermione and Sirius (and consequently the entire rest of the Harry > Potter novels). This, obviously, suggests that this type of time > travel doesn't occur with the use of a time-turner. I agree completely on what you say here (and this is what I was trying to point out). The fact that Harry "died" is what made me introduce another person (Person-X) in order to correct the situation (of Harry's death), but not exactly in the way you stated in Theory 2. (Keep reading) Laurasia wrote: About Theory 2: > To translate this into an example, it would mean that H2/H2 didn't > exist in the initial time span to rescue Buckbeak, but some other > person (person-X) did it. Then, in the second universe person-X > didn't have to save Buckbeak, as he was already saved (by H2/H2). > For the incidents with the Dementors at the Lake, it would mean > that person-X cast the Patronus in the first universe, then > stepped aside to let Harry cast it in the second universe. > > Whilst this is a valid form of time-travel, I don't agree with it > in the PoA sense, because it asks the question: Who is person-X??? > As far as we're aware the only people who know Hermione has a time- > turner is McGonagall and Dumbledore. Dumbledore's amused actions > at Buckbeaks appeal (where he stalls Macnair those few extra > seconds that enable H2/H2/BB to escape, the way he has a slightly > amused tone when Buckbeak's absence is discovered and his comment > to 'search the skies' imply that he is very well aware that there > is something fishy going on. This could mean that he is person-X > in the first existence in relation to Buckbeaks's departure. Only, > he doesn't look remarkably like James Potter to be person-X who > casts the Patronus. To me, Person-X's only mission in his time loop was to save Harry's life. Person-X cast the Patronus in the first universe, but stepped aside because Harry broke a very important rule (which Hermione and Dumbledore insisted he should not do). He set out to see who was the person who cast the Patronus. He should NOT have done this. The person who cast the Patronus could not risk being seen (even by Harry), so he hid. Harry jumps to the conclusion that he cast the Patronus in the first place, because no one else appeared while he was waiting. He was NOT supposed to be there. Harry, believing he was the one that cast the Patronus in the first place, felt confident enough to give it a try and succeeded (because he was confident he could do it). But he shouldn't have done it, he shouldn't be there. The reason Harry and Hermione went back in time was to save Buckbeak and Sirius, not to cast the Patronus that saved his life. Dumbledore knows something fishy is going on, we agree. He is such a powerful wizard that I sometimes believe he has his own method of knowing these kind of events, maybe he has an object through which he can see the events of the past he chooses to watch (like the Pensieve which he uses to review the memories and thoughts he has stored in it), or going back in time without the use of a Time- Turner, (analogous as when he can disappear without the use of an Invisibility Cloak and making no sound at all). (It's really late and I can't find the references in canon where Dumbledore tells Harry about not needing an Invisibility Cloak to disappear, but if you need it, give me time to look it up, and I'll post it later). I agree with you that Dumbledore is not the person who cast the Patronus. What I've said in the last two paragraphs is what leads me to theorize that the person to cast the Patronus was James (in Lupin's body). Person-X hid when Harry got near, why? What problem would there be that Harry found out it was Dumbledore, for example, who cast the Patronus? Harry is already in a time loop (knows what it is), seeing Dumbledore there wouldn't surprise him. Seeing Lupin there would be weird as everyone thinks he missed drinking the potion that night. I don't think he missed drinking the potion, the potion does not prevent him from turning into a werewolf, it only gives him self control while he is a werewolf, avoiding him to bite another human and to harm himself. Sirius did not know that Lupin was drinking the potion (as it was discovered recently) and Sirius and Lupin's first chance to talk in 12 years was at the Shrieking Shack, where by what Snape said, led everyone to believe he didn't drink the potion (Lupin did not clarify if he did or didn't drink it). When Lupin transformed, Sirius "Animagate- ed" into a dog believing it was the only way to save everyone else there (as it had always happened in the past while he was around). Lupin probably knew (by Dumbledore) that Harry was in danger of being kissed by a Dementor and that he had to cast the Patronus to save Harry, but Sirius wasn't leaving him alone. Something happened that made Sirius appear in human form, in which he was susceptible to the Dementors, giving the werewolf a chance to get rid of Sirius and cast the Patronus. Laurasia wrote: > I often wonder about the use of person-X time-travel, as if > someone was already there, why go back in the first place? By that > I mean, if Harry and co. were already saved by mysterious person > on the other side of the Lake, where is the need to go back and > save them?? (of course, it should be noted that no-one had any > idea that they were going to be in need of saving when H2/H2 were > sent back). Harry and Hermione do not go back to save Harry, nor for Harry to cast the Patronus Charm, they went back to save BB and Sirius. Harry should not have run to the lake searching for whoever cast the spell. Laurasia about Theory 3 explains: > This one fits the events of PoA much better than either of the two > described above. Unknown to Harry, Hermione and Ron, future forms > of Harry and Hermione are simultaneously doing things around the > school. When they are walking down to visit Hagrid underneath the > invisibility cloak they hear 'a pair of people hurrying across the > hall, and a door slamming.' Then, when we hear this event relayed > from the perspective of H2/H2 it sounds like this: 'Hermione > seized Harry's arm and dragged him across the hall to the door of > a broom cupboard; she opened it, pushed him inside amongst the > buckets and mops, followed him in, then slammed the door behind > them.' which sounds exactly the same. If you take this form of > time-travel to be the type used, it means that H2/H2 were hiding > around Hagrid's hut and were the people who lead Buckbeak to > safety. It means that Harry was the person (and indeed the *only* > person) who cast the Patronus at the edge of the Lake. Although I completely agree with you about viewing things from a different perspective, I uh, I really have trouble seeing how Harry is the *only* person *ever* to cast the Patronus. I mean, the first time he couldn't cast a Patronus BEFORE going back in time. A loop in time doesn't just exist; it must be triggered by some event. The Time-Turner triggers these loops. The moment you use the Time- Turner, you generate a loop, it doesn't matter if you are applying theories 1 or 3. If you don't use the Time Turner, you don't create a loop, so how could Harry use the Time-Turner if he "died" before getting the chance to do it. I feel I'm going back to the same problem in Theory 1 which generated Theory 2. Could you please explain this to me? Please keep in mind that Harry did NOT go back to save himself. He should NOT have been there. He had another mission. PoA. Ch. 21: Hermione's Secret (Page 410) > "I think I?d better go outside again, you know," said Harry > slowly. "I can't see what's going on - we don't know when it's > time" > > Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious. > > "I?m not going to try and interfere," said Harry quickly. "But if > we don't see what's going on, how're we going to know when it's > time to rescue Sirius?" > > "Well...okay, then... I'll wait here with Buckbeak... but Harry be > careful - there's a werewolf out there - and the dementors." > > (Goes on with Harry running to the lake, waiting for his rescuer > and casting the Patronus Charm, Hermione and BB run to him) > > "What did you do?," she said fiercely, "You said you were only > going to keep a lookout!" Thanks! Sharana From sushi at societyhappens.com Sun Dec 29 10:26:30 2002 From: sushi at societyhappens.com (Sushi) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 04:26:30 -0600 Subject: Colour theory, eyes, and Gryffindor Voldemort (was: Re: Dobby's Sock Present) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021229040010.02634360@mail.societyhappens.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48931 JCMinJapan: aka Jon wrote: >hmmm, from what JKR says? Could the socks mean something? >Gryffindor is red and one sock is red....... Slytherin is green and >one sock is green. The sorting hat had problems placing him in >either house. Harrys eyes are green and so where his mothers. >Voldemort had red eyes.... hmmmmmmmm could all of this lead up to >something? Another thing to take into account, which has probably been mentioned, is that red and green are opposites on the solid pigment (not light-based, as in RGB) colour wheel. This means, basically, they neutralise each other. This could imply that Harry and Voldemort are more evenly matched than either of them thinks. It makes a nice piece of symbolism in light of opposing wands, and H.'s and V.'s apparent inability to completely destroy the other. I do find it interesting that, while three of the Houses have primary colours, Slytherin, the "bad" House (bah, I'm Slytherin and proud of it!), is relegated to a secondary. I don't think it was coincidence that it would be the opposite of the "best" House, Gryffindor (hotheaded, overemotional... *grumbles*grin*). In a way, this is just another way to isolate Slytherin from the rest of the herd. (I could also get into a spiel on the separation between warm-blooded and cold-blooded House mascots, and the corrosive nature of silver as opposed to gold, lead, and, to a slightly lesser degree, bronze, but that might be going a bit too far in the Slytherin vs. The World debate.) I do find it interesting that Harry's eyes are Slytherin, and Voldemort's are Gryffindor. We already know Harry possesses some Slytherin traits. Perhaps it's a comment on V.'s hidden nature? We know he's cunning, ruthless, and dangerous, but how much bravery does it take to approach the most wicked wizards in the world in order to ask them for lessons? I don't know if LV would count as all that brave, but Tom Riddle might have. He certainly took some major risks, confronting a beast that could have killed him with a glance (the Basilisk) and going to the effort of studying forbidden subjects. Draco is as "pure" a Slytherin as we've seen, IMO, and his efforts to soothe a savage beast involve mocking it until it attacks him. That's not a show of bravery. (It's not one of cunning, either, unless his attempts to have Hagrid sacked were that far premeditated.) He wouldn't have been able to walk into a Basilisk's lair whether they spoke the same language or not. Riddle, on the other hand, had it within himself to walk into a Schrodinger's Cat situation - he could have died as easily as lived - in a place where he'd have never been found. That, to me, implies that he and Harry have more in common than either would like to admit. It's 4:30am. Talk amongst yourselves. :) Sushi, nocturnal [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Dec 29 14:04:51 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:04:51 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA (was: Re: Lupin is James and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48932 Wading in with my own take on Laurasia's excellent breakdown of possible Time Turner universes. Theory 3: Everything happens only once. I think, Sharana you are getting confused because you keep looking at it from the Point of View of Harry and Hermione, who travel through events twice. Plus you keep seeing the use of the Time Turner as non inevitable. By the time Harry and Hermione decide to use the TT, they've actually already used it. Sharana: > I really have trouble seeing how Harry > is the *only* person *ever* to cast the Patronus. I mean, the > first time he couldn't cast a Patronus BEFORE going back in time. > A loop in time doesn't just exist; it must be triggered by some > event. The Time-Turner triggers these loops. The moment you use > the Time- > Turner, you generate a loop, it doesn't matter if you are applying > theories 1 or 3. If you don't use the Time Turner, you don't > create a loop, so how could Harry use the Time-Turner if he "died" > before getting the chance to do it. I feel I'm going back to the > same problem in Theory 1 which generated Theory 2. Could you > please explain this to me? Prepare to be confused :0) In Theory 3 there is not, and never will be, a sequence of events where Harry and Hermione did not go back in time. There is only one world. Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are always present in it. Because Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are present during the events of Buckbeak's execution, the SS, and the Dementors, by the time Harry 1 and Hermione 1 get to the Hospital scene, the loop is already in existence. It is not created by the Time Turner. The TT is just the mechanical means to keep the loop going. Remember, in Theory 3 there is only one world, and HH2 are always present in it. If Harry had been killed by Dementors, the loop would not exist. Not only would HH have been unavailable to create a loop (they'd have been dead), there would have been no *need* for a loop. Events had panned out badly, but that would have been the sequence of events. The physicist Igor Novikov has done some work on Time Travel paradoxes. Basically, the only behaviours that work out mathematically is when events are absolutely self consistent. Harry wouldn't be available to go back in time to save his life *unless* he'd saved his life. The only self consistent sequence of events is where Harry 2 saves Harry 1, so that Harry 1 lives, is available to go back via the Time Turner, becomes Harry 2, and saves the life of Harry 1. But (and this is the seriously confusing bit) you keep thinking that there must be a `before', a sequence of events where the TT hasn't been used yet. That's because you're seeing it from Harry and Hermione's POV as they go through the loop. If you had hidden at Hogwarts just before the loop starts, and followed events through, you would have seen two Harry's and two Hermione's until HH1 travel back in time, leaving HH2 as the only Harry and Hermione. The use of the TT isn't caused by HH1 deciding to use it, it's caused by HH2 having *already* travelled back in time to save Buckbeak and Sirius, creating a series of events which required them to travel back in time in order that events be self consistent, which creates a series of events requiring them to travel back in time in order that events be self consistent, thus creating a series of events which need them to travel back in time and so on. I know it's seriously confusing, but there is no `before'. Harry and Hermione always used the TT. There's no sequence of events where they didn't. Hope this helps Pip!Squeak From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 17:10:24 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 09:10:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time Travel in PoA - The Map (was: Re: Lupin is James and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021229171024.32103.qmail@web14611.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48933 "bluesqueak " wrote: Prepare to be confused :0) In Theory 3 there is not, and never will be, a sequence of events where Harry and Hermione did not go back in time. There is only one world. Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are always present in it. >> I have always thought of the Time Travel in POA like this, but I have no knowledge of time travel theories, so thanks for really explaining it. But ok, this then goes back to the question recently asked, why didn't H&H2 show up on the Maurader's Map when Lupin was examining it. It might be said that once he saw PP on the map he was so in wonder of that and observing that, that he was not looking at other people in the vicinity. But Lupin states that he watched the Trio (sans Peter) walk down towards Hagrid's hut, and we know that H&H2 were very closely trailing the Trio, on the open lawns at night where no one else was around. There is no WAY Lupin didn't see that. But if the time travel does NOT create a parallel dimension, then H&H 2 SHOULD have shown up. So here are my thoughts on this, there are three options. 1) it is a flint 2) Lupin DID see H&H2 and knew what was going on (that is that they were time traveling, Lupin as a teacher could have know about Hermione's time turner). And then for unseen reasons never brought this up. 3) H&H 2 DID not show up because of a failure of the map. I think we all treat this map as this unerring magical object. Yes it is powerful, and impresses many people including Fake!Moody. But we must remember that it was created by humans, kids in fact (though brilliant kids indeed). Lupin says he thought the map was "malfunctioning" when he saw Peter. Yes, this might be because anything would be more believable that Peter back from the dead, but it also shows that one of the mpas creators believes that the map could not function properly. I think it a stretch to assume that these school kids created an all-powerful and all-knowing magical object. Maybe the the map could not "process" the appearance of "time travelers". just some thoughts angela --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 17:21:12 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:21:12 -0000 Subject: Time travel in PoA (was: Re: Remus is James and Time Travel) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48934 Pip!Squeak, I appreciate the time you are taking to answer my question. Believe it or not I understand completely all the explanations you gave me, but I believe I have not been able to express clearly the reason why I am having trouble accepting your point of view of theory 3. Let's see if I manage it this time. Pip!Squeak wrote: > Prepare to be confused :0) > In Theory 3 there is not, and never will be, a sequence of events > where Harry and Hermione did not go back in time. There is only > one world. Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are always present in it. It doesn't confuse me :-) This is exactly what I cannot accept. I can see no logical explanation to it. In all my life, I have never been able to accept something like this. It is something too sci-fi to me (Keep reading to understand why). Pip!Squeak wrote: > Because Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are present during the events of > Buckbeak's execution, the SS, and the Dementors, by the time Harry > 1 and Hermione 1 get to the Hospital scene, the loop is already in > existence. It is not created by the Time Turner. The TT is just > the mechanical means to keep the loop going. If the TT does not create the loop, what does? I cannot see how a time loop just exists; there must be something that generates it. For me to accept theory 3 as valid, I just need an answer to this question. What generates the time loop? God? Several Sci-Fi movies and TV series address time loop issues. In Stargate SG-1 there is a very funny episode called Window of Opportunity, where several planets (and everyone who lives in them) get caught in a time loop (kind of like Ground Hogs Day, which I haven't had the opportunity to see). Only 2 people realize that events repeat themselves every ten hours, no matter what happens in these 10 hours. They are the only ones to carry any memory about what happened in previous loops. After many loops, they realize that the event that triggered the time loop was a "machine" they activated in another planet creating a time bubble. Only those who were inside the machine room when it was activated are able to remember previous loops. It took them several months to figure out how to deactivate the machine (it was created by a superior alien race and they had to decipher the writings to understand how to use the machine). When they finally did turn the machine off, the time loops stopped, to everyone (in all the planets) that where inside the bubble, only ten hours had passed, but to the rest of the galaxy and the two that remembered the loops, several months had passed. I know this is a kind of time loop that doesn't exactly fit inside any of the 3 theories; to start with, you can end it at a specific time. and once the time loop is triggered, it automatically turns back 10 hours, no matter what you do in any loop (unless you shut the machine off). But there is an event that triggers the time loop. If it isn't the TT, I need to understand how the time loop (that makes Harry cast a Patronus to save his own life) is created. If you answer me something like "a time distortion is what generates the loop," then I must ask you what generates the time distortion. But for now, by canon (and what I stated in the message you responded me to), it is easier for me to understand that things happened the way I explained in the message you just replied to me from, than to accept the fact that a time loop exists just because it does; and that the person to cast the Patronus (even the first time) is Harry, to me that just doesn't make sense. To me Harry cast the Patronus because he did something very dangerous, which he was told not to do, he ran to the lake eager to see who cast the Patronus that had saved him (wishing to see his father). He wasn't supposed to do that, he wasn't supposed to be there. He got lucky he thought about casting the Patronus himself, at that moment, if he hadn't succeeded in casting the Patronus, or if he just sat there another minute, waiting for someone else to appear; he would have screwed up his life. As Hermione says (PoA, Page 398), nobody is supposed to change time, it is one of the most important wizarding laws. McGonagall told Hermione: "awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!" This is the main reason why it was made a Law, to protect the life of all wizards. Harry made the same mistake these wizards (the ones McGonagall talks about) did. He changed his past without fully realizing the consequences of what he was doing (he was just hoping to see his dad); only he was lucky enough to correct his mistake, without realizing it. I believe this is a valid (and not too hard to understand) explanation. When any of you manage to answer me my question on what makes this time loop exist in the first place, then I will believe that there are two valid explanations to this time loop. (Believe me; I am really, really trying to understand it) In advanced, I really appreciate your patience. Thanks... Sharana... From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 18:03:13 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 18:03:13 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA - The Map (was: Re: Lupin is James and Ti... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48935 angela wrote: >But ok, this then goes back to the question recently asked, why > didn't H&H2 show up on the Maurader's Map when Lupin was examining > it. It might be said that once he saw PP on the map he was so in > wonder of that and observing that, that he was not looking at > other people in the vicinity. But Lupin states that he watched > the Trio (sans Peter) walk down towards Hagrid's hut, and we know > that H&H2 were very closely trailing the Trio, on the open lawns > at night where no one else was around. There is no WAY Lupin > didn't see that. But if the time travel does NOT create a > parallel dimension, then H&H 2 SHOULD have shown up. So here are > my thoughts on this, there are three options. > > 1) it is a flint > > 2) Lupin DID see H&H2 and knew what was going on (that is that > they were time traveling, Lupin as a teacher could have know about > Hermione's time turner). And then for unseen reasons never > brought this up. > > 3) H&H 2 DID not show up because of a failure of the map. I think > we all treat this map as this unerring magical object. Yes it is > powerful, and impresses many people including Fake!Moody. But we > must remember that it was created by humans, kids in fact (though > brilliant kids indeed). Lupin says he thought the map > was "malfunctioning" when he saw Peter. Yes, this might be > because anything would be more believable that Peter back from the > dead, but it also shows that one of the mpas creators believes > that the map could not function properly. I think it a stretch to > assume that these school kids created an all-powerful and all > -knowing magical object. Maybe the the map could not "process" > the appearance of "time travelers". I can give you option number 4 (which reading your post, just occurred to me, shame I didn't read it 2 minutes ago when I posted a discussion on this, as I believe helps me prove what I have trying to say from the beginning: that Harry did NOT cast the Patronus the first time): Option 4: H&H2 do NOT show up on the map, because they do not exist at that point in time. The time loop has NOT been created yet. In the Shrieking Shack we are told that "The Map never lies". Lupin thought that there must be a mistake because he saw PP in it, he was confused about it as he believed PP was dead. He was just about to go to find out for himself what was going on, when he saw Sirius on the map. Later he arrives at the Shrieking Shack and finds Harry pointing his wand to Sirius. His first reaction is to disarm everyone. Then he asks Sirius "Where is he" referring to Peter. He sees that Peter is Ron's Rat and realizes that Peter took Sirius place being Secret- Keeper. If you notice all these chain of events are linked directly to Peter, not to H&H2, appearing on the map. Lupin needs to understand why Peter is alive and there with them, which is why the first thing he does it to disarm Harry. He realizes that if Peter is alive and has not shown himself yet, is because something fishy is going on. So H&H2 do not appear on the map because the time loop has not been created, later when Lupin turns into a werewolf, Sirius goes after him, nobody knows what happens and suddenly Sirius appears in human form, being affected by the Dementors, and Lupin escapes him. Lupin did drink the Wolfsbane Potion (he never clarified Snapes remark about not drinking it), so Lupin being a werewolf arrives at the border of the Lake and sees in the distance that the Dementors are about to kiss someone, he knows his friends are out there somewhere, probably being those who the Dementors are about to kiss, so he casts the Patronus Charm to drive the Dementors away. Remember the Wolfsbane Potion does not prevent Lupin turning into a werewolf, it gives the werewolf control of his body, preventing him to attack others and himself. Then, as Harry wasn't kissed, he and Hermione are able to go back in time (creating the time loop) to save Buckbeak and Sirius. But while doing that, he did something really stupid: he runs to the lake eager to see if it was his dad who cast the Patronus (I will cut-paste what I just posted in my last message about this) -------------------------------- To me Harry cast the Patronus because he did something very dangerous, which he was told not to do, he ran to the lake eager to see who cast the Patronus that had saved him (wishing to see his father). He wasn't supposed to do that, he wasn't supposed to be there. He was lucky he thought about casting the Patronus himself, at that moment, if he hadn't succeeded in casting the Patronus, or if he just sat there another minute, waiting for someone else to appear; he would have screwed up his life. As Hermione says (PoA, Page 398), nobody is supposed to change time, it is one of the most important wizarding laws. McGonagall told Hermione: "awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!" This is the main reason why it was made a Law, to protect the life of all wizards. Harry made the same mistake these wizards (the ones McGonagall talks about) did. He changed his past without fully realizing the consequences of what he was doing (he was just hoping to see his dad); only he was lucky enough to correct his mistake, without realizing it, just in time. ----------------------------------- I don't know at what point you caught up on this thread. To fully understand why I believe in this 4th option, please refer to all the messages about "Remus is James" and "Time travel in PoA". Hope it helps!! And thanks for giving my this idea! Sharana From Sunnylove0 at aol.com Sun Dec 29 18:51:51 2002 From: Sunnylove0 at aol.com (Sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:51:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Travel in PoA - The Map (was: Re: Lupin is James... Message-ID: <126.1e1f3052.2b409e47@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48936 In a message dated 12/29/2002 11:24:47 AM Mountain Standard Time, sharana.geo at yahoo.com writes: > Lupin did drink the Wolfsbane Potion (he never clarified Snapes > remark about not drinking it), so Lupin being a werewolf arrives at > the border of the Lake and sees in the distance that the Dementors > are about to kiss someone, he knows his friends are out there > somewhere, probably being those who the Dementors are about to kiss, > so he casts the Patronus Charm to drive the Dementors away. > > (delurking momentarily, fascinated) One slight hole, however. How does Lupin, in wolf form, cast the Patronus Charm? How can he hold a wand without opposable thumbs? The Queen Of Serpents [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sun Dec 29 19:05:19 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:05:19 -0000 Subject: lion-eagle/Map/V changing wand/prefects/DE names/halfblood/TMR-Harry resemb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48937 Catlady comments: > if Fred and George were less troublesome OR had better > grades, would the school authorities have flipped a coin for which > one to make prefect? Or made an exception for twins by choosing TWO > prefects? > > For that matter, if Fred and George had been able to put their >names > into the Goblet of Fire, could it have chosen one of them without the > other as Champion? Screaming in frustration, I reply: No! No, no, no, no! This is off topic, but I must rant. Twins are not one person! Of course the Goblet could have made a choice; they are two completely different people. And I hope to God the school wouldn't make an exception and treat the twins as a single person. Teachers have a horrible tendency to do things like that, and it's probably the most detrimental action they can possibly take towards shaping that child's individual identity. Fred and George play off each other constantly. This is because they were raised together, know each other extremely well, and know each other's strengths. They are able to use this to their advantage to cause as much mischief as possible, a common hobby both twins share. But they are still different people. Give me some time to look through the books and I'll give canon for the two different personalities. - Corinth From rbroeker at hotmail.com Sun Dec 29 19:06:28 2002 From: rbroeker at hotmail.com (beccafran ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:06:28 -0000 Subject: Time Travel in PoA - The Map (was: Re: Lupin is James and Ti... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote: > H&H2 do NOT show up on the map, because they do not exist at that > point in time. The time loop has NOT been created yet. In the > Shrieking Shack we are told that "The Map never lies". Lupin thought > that there must be a mistake because he saw PP in it, he was > confused about it as he believed PP was dead. He was just about to > go to find out for himself what was going on, when he saw Sirius on > the map. I agree with Pip!Squeak who said: >I think, Sharana you are getting confused because you keep looking >at it from the Point of View of Harry and Hermione, who travel >through events twice. Plus you keep seeing the use of the Time >Turner as non inevitable. By the time Harry and Hermione decide to >use the TT, they've actually already used it. >From the point of view of Harry and Hermione, the time loop hasn't been created during the scene in the Shrieking Shack. However, Lupin only goes through these events once. For him, there is no moment when the loop was not created. There are simply two Harrys and two Hermiones walking around in his world for three hours. I'm not sure I totally understand the concept of the endless time loop which is never actually created, but either way you look at it, Lupin only goes through the events once and is *never* in a moment when the loop does not exist. Personally, I think he sees H2 & H2 on the map, and doesn't mention it for some reason. But why??? BeccaFran From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 19:40:56 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:40:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Travel in PoA - The Map (was: Re: Lupin is James and Ti... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021229194056.55701.qmail@web14611.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48939 "sharana.geo " wrote: I can give you option number 4 SNIP Option 4: H&H2 do NOT show up on the map, because they do not exist at that point in time. The time loop has NOT been created yet. >> ME: Yes I have been following this discussion. But like I stated in my first post, I follow the theory of "everything" happening at once or "time travel theory number 3" So For me, your option 4 does not work. But for YOU, the question of H&H2 not showing up on the map, does give more credit to your theory, if we choose to believe your option number four. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 20:02:50 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:02:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Travel in PoA (was: Re: Lupin is James and Time ... Message-ID: <16.2a723494.2b40aeea@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48940 In a message dated 12/29/2002 5:15:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, sharana.geo at yahoo.com writes: > Although I completely agree with you about viewing things from a > different perspective, I uh, I really have trouble seeing how Harry > is the *only* person *ever* to cast the Patronus. I mean, the first > time he couldn't cast a Patronus BEFORE going back in time. A loop > in time doesn't just exist; it must be triggered by some event. The > Time-Turner triggers these loops. The moment you use the Time- > Turner, you generate a loop, it doesn't matter if you are applying > theories 1 or 3. If you don't use the Time Turner, you don't create > a loop, so how could Harry use the Time-Turner if he "died" before > getting the chance to do it. I feel I'm going back to the same > problem in Theory 1 which generated Theory 2. Could you please > explain this to me? > Well, Here's my attempt to explain it: I, too, have trouble with the theory that there was always a Harry2 to cast the patronus, because he must survive long enough to go back and cast the patronus to save himself. So, Harry in the origional timeline (before all the turning) must have somehow survived so he could go back in time and be Harry 2. Therefore, in the origional timeline, Harry must not have died. However, timetravel theory says that you can't change events that already happened without having unheard of consequences. Therefore, the Lupin/hermione/anyone goes back and saves harry the first time won't work, because it would screw everything up. (correction on reading this again: it could have been someone else, but then we would have to think that events turned out very differently... i.e. maybe it was freed!sirius that went back to save harry the first time, being his godfather and responsible for harry's well being and all, but his interference caused him to be doomed!sirius and be unable to use the timeturner, but, luckily, hermione and harry did. If anyone needs clarification on this, i'll post again, but, because i find it unlikely, i'm not going to go in depth about it here) So, since noone but harry can save harry, without messing up the timeline, *Harry must have origionally saved Harry.* Remember, there is no real certainty that Harry would have been kissed had there not been a last minute Patronus cast from across the lake. Harry1 could have cast the patronus, origionally, right before he was kissed (and right after harry 2 would save him later in the loop) This would not change much in the loop, at least, not enough to prevent harry and hermione from using the timeturner and going back to save buckbeak. -scheherazade, whose head hurts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 20:09:58 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:09:58 EST Subject: the twins are two people! (wasRe: lion-eagle/Map/V changing wand/prefects/D) Message-ID: <1ac.e01134d.2b40b096@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48941 In a message dated 12/29/2002 2:08:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, kkearney at students.miami.edu writes: > Give me some time to look through the books > and I'll give canon for the two different personalities. > Way ahead of ya!!! I was going to reply with similar sentiments, but you beat me to it! *g* I've been going through the books, highlighting each time the twins are mentioned , and which says/did what. (If you want, i'll send you the typed list of all the instances when i finish offlist (i just got through book 1!!!) ) I'm planning to write an essay on the twin's individual personalities. In general, i've noticed that Fred seems to be the 'dominant' twin, while george is more reluctant in the mischief ^_^. On the subject of the goblet/prefects. I think Fred would have been chosen by the goblet, but George would make a better prefect. -Scheherazade, twin enthusiast! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 20:27:41 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Strix ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:27:41 -0000 Subject: Colour theory, eyes, and Gryffindor Voldemort (was: Re: Dobby's Sock Present) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021229040010.02634360@mail.societyhappens.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sushi wrote: > JCMinJapan: aka Jon wrote: I do find it interesting that, while three of the Houses have > primary colours, Slytherin, the "bad" House (bah, I'm Slytherin and proud > of it!), is relegated to a secondary. I don't think it was coincidence > that it would be the opposite of the "best" House, Gryffindor (hotheaded, > overemotional... *grumbles*grin*). In a way, this is just another way to > isolate Slytherin from the rest of the herd. (I could also get into a > spiel on the separation between warm-blooded and cold- blooded House > mascots, and the corrosive nature of silver as opposed to gold, lead, and, > to a slightly lesser degree, bronze, but that might be going a bit too far > in the Slytherin vs. The World debate.) You could also have some fun with the alchemical elements here. Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff earth, and Slytherin water. Or at least that's the way I'd assign them. Kelly L., "the artist formerly known as Strix", sick of all her pseudonyms From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 19:16:42 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:16:42 -0000 Subject: Werewolves (was: Re: Time Travel and Map) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48943 Queen of Serpents wrote: > How does Lupin, in wolf form, cast the Patronus Charm? How can he > hold a wand without opposable thumbs? A werewolf is not a man turned into a wolf. It is something between a human and a wolf. It is usually pictured standing up on 2 feet, with furry hands. I don't remember the name of the movie but Michael J. Fox did a movie (long ago) where he was a teenage werewolf (and his father too). It's been several years since I've played AD&D, my Monster's Manual isn't at had right now. I made a quick search in Google for Werewolf pictures: This is one that I found: Potterverse werewolves must be similar in some sense. Probably conserves some of his clothes on, so he keeps his wand with him. Sharana From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 20:43:25 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:43:25 -0000 Subject: Time Only Moves Forward Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48944 The Time Travel thread has really started to get interesting, and I really hate to break the thread by starting a new one, but there is some much good information that I can't decide who to respond to. That, combine with the fact that I have my own time travel explanation. Here is the foundation of my theory - Time only moves forward, never back. Part of the problem with understanding time travel is that we start in the future and then jump to the past and move through time until we reach the future and jump to the past again, seeming to cause a infinitely repeating loop of jumping back and moving forward. I think the only way to have a functional analysis is to start in the past and only move forward. Time never travels backwards although people do. Let's not look at when Harry1 and Hermione1 (H1/H1 - the originals) exit the timeline. Let's just start in the past and move forward second by second. H1/H1/R1 come down and hide until the coast is clear, then they exit the castle to go down to Hagrid's. At roughly this time, H2/H2 enter the timeline. Time moves forward; Hagrid's, returning under the cloak, the presumed execution, Scabbers escapes, Ron in the tunnel, the Shrieking Shack, the return, the Dementors, the Petronus, the escape, .... During most of this H2/H2 are hiding in the forest. The Map - There are blank spots on the map; places where people can't be seen. Harry doesn't see himself on the map until he steps outside the classroom in which Fred/George gave him the map. Lupin doesn't see Peter until H1/H1/R1 come out of Hagrid's. It seems unlikely that the Marauder would ever need to know if a teacher was in the forest. I think a lot of the 'dead' areas are either area where there would likely be so many people as to make the map useless or places of no interest like Hagrid's. The purpose of the map is not to see where ever person is at all times, but to see if the coast is clear for whatever they may be attempting to do at the moment. Which is likely to be either moving around the castle or trying to get in/out of the castle. That's what the function of the map focuses on. Why didn't Lupin at some point or at some time see two of Harry and Hermione? It's possible he did, but didn't realize it. Once he had H/H/R located on the map, he was concentrating on what they were doing. It's unlikely that he said to himself, 'Gee, I wonder if there is another Harry and Hermione on here somewhere.' He saw what he wanted to see, and was concentrating on those events on the map. Remember, the entire floorplan for a very large seven story building and it's grounds are on once piece of parchment. By Harry's own statements, the writing is miniscule. You have to strain your eyes to read it. That certainly wouldn't have made it easy for Lupin to accidently see the additional H/H. I really have no problem with Lupin not noticing 2 of Harry and Hermione even if they did appear on the map at the same time. Time Marches On- If we only keep the timeline moving forward, at some point, H2/H2 are running up the hallway toward the hospital. Dumbledore holds them outside the hospital door until H1/H1 vanish from the timeline, then allows them into the hospital ward where .... time marches on. If we only look at time moving forward, then we have H2/H2 entering the timeline and then later, we have H1/H1 vanishing from the timeline. In between those events, we have two H/H who are in reality the same person. H2/H2 have all the knowledge, experience, and history that H1/H1 will have up to the point where they vanish. The original (H1/H1) Harry and Hermione have a single knowledge of the history of the previous three hours. H2/H2 have knowledge of that history from two different perspectives. At the point where H1/H1 disappear, the perspectives converge and a single knowledge of history moves forward from there. I admit that even with my explaination of time only moving forward there is still an element of uncertainty; a degree of paradox. But from a historical perspective, at some point a second H/H join the timeline, then three hours later the first H/H vanish from the timeline. We do know why H1/H1 vanished, and why H2/H2 appeared in the timeline but time still only moves forward. The key to time travel is to not alter anything that has been resolved. You can't change a historically documented event. It was not a known fact, it was presumed, that Buckbeak was executed. It was a known fact the someone who look like Harry's father cast a Partomus charm from across the lake. When Harry and Hermione woke in the hospital it was assumed as a fact that Sirius was still lock in Flintwick's office. When H1/H1 vanish and H2/H2 re-enter the hospital, all presumptions, assumptions, and ambiguities have been resolved and history becomes etched in stone. H2/H2 did not alter history, they merely confirmed it. A very difficult subject to discuss. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From Lynx412 at aol.com Sun Dec 29 20:55:00 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:55:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves (was: Re: Time Travel and Map) Message-ID: <44.2b7d21ef.2b40bb24@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48945 In a message dated 12/29/02 3:37:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, sharana.geo at yahoo.com writes: > A werewolf is not a man turned into a wolf. It is something between a human > and a wolf. It is usually pictured standing up on 2 feet, with furry hands. > Actually, my impression, from PoA, is that Potterverse werewolves *do* become wolves, not the movie humanoid variant. I believe that this is the more traditional version, with the wolfman variant only appearing with the movies due to the difficulty of getting realistic wolves for the part. My reading of the transformation scene and Lupin's comments in PoA is that he, in fact, takes on a wolf-like form not a humanoid one. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fanfictionmaniac at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 29 20:30:56 2002 From: fanfictionmaniac at yahoo.co.uk (fanfictionmaniac ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:30:56 -0000 Subject: What do you think of the Harry/Ron Ship? What would Hermione think? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48946 I think that H/R is a good ship since they are friends already (and for so long) they might what to discover new levels. It seems that Hermione is torn between the two. I think she would be shocked, but she won't discriminate!! Chris From vaseemf at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 20:52:50 2002 From: vaseemf at yahoo.com (vaseemf ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:52:50 -0000 Subject: Invisibilty Cloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48947 Susan: > If Mad Eye Moody's magical eye and the Marauder's Map can see Harry > in his Cloak, it would indicate that the Cloak is not completely > impervious. (It's been hinted in PS and CoS that Dumbledore can > even see through it, magical eye or not) So do the same old laws of > physics that bind the rest of us bind someone wearing a Cloak? If > they can be felt and touched, they obviously don't disappear, they > are just concealed. So do they cast a shadow? And if, as I suspect, > they do, why doesn't anyone notice?! Well if you are going to go with the physics thing, the thing that would make some one invisible it to make sure that light does not get bounced back off the the person who is invisible. They can either bend the light around the person or have the light pass through the prson unaltered. Either of these case would not allow a shadow to appear since it only appears when light bounces of something in front of a light source. Also if there was a shadow then there would be pretty much no point to it. One of the things that truobles me is how Harry can see the cloak. If light passes through it or around it he shouldn't be able to see it. My guess is that it needs to be close to a living thing in order for it to work. I've also wondered which creatures it works on. Fantastic Beasts says that the thread that they have weaved comes from an animal that can turn it self invisible. If this is true it must work with animals. Also, can muggles use it? I doubt it. It seems to me that the MoM would probably put a charm on it to make it so that Muggles can't use it. In SS/PS it hints that the cloack may not work on animals such as cats. I think that it should because the thread comes from an animal that lives out in the wilderness. It wouldnt be a very useful adaptation if only humans who rarely go to their habitat were the ones who could not see them Any thoughts? - Sajid (A guy's name), who is probably the youngest person on HPFGU but got sick of kids message boards From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 21:16:43 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:16:43 -0000 Subject: SHIP(TBAY)R/H vs. H/H vs. FITD--Banging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48948 [Note: While I read the odd post here and there, I absolutely and completely did *not* follow the recent Shipping thread. Consequently, I have no idea what was said in it beyond what I saw in the subject lines. If any or all of my thoughts in this post have been mentioned, or refuted, in that thread, I offer my most sincere apologies.] Cindy and Derannimer are just settling down to watch the show when a slightly lost looking figure trudges over a nearby sand-dune. If possible, she seems even less coordinated then Derannimer was, although that may be because she keeps looking up at the flying ships and going 'Wow!' and 'Whee!'. "Abigail?" Asks Cindy, "Where have you been keeping yourself? You were at George's Tavern, I remeber, but what happened then?" "I have been through a Dishwasher." Abigail states. "I left when people started drawing swords, although I understand there was some interesting stuff with a bunny and a well-dressed Russian gentleman that I missed [1]. And then... it appeared. The Crouch monolith. We all just sat around and stared at it. At its size. Its strangely perfect lines. Its apparently unbreachable surface. I just sat and pondered it for days." Her eyes take on a slightly glassy expression for a moment until, with a shake of her head, she snaps back to reality. "Anyway, I was just on my way home when this light show started, and then I heard the two of you talking. Do you mind if I join in a bit?" "Not at all." Says Derannimer. "Pull up some sand. Do you Ship?" "Nope." Abigail replies instantly. "Not even a bit?" Cindy exclaims incredulously. "Come on, everyone's got their own personal preference, even if they never state it." "I don't." Abigail shrugs. "Or rather, I do, but it's sort on an anti-Ship. I've always found the idea that Lily and James married and had a child so young faintly disturbing, especially when you consider wizards' extended lifespans. I was more than a little distressed to discover that Mr. and Mrs. Weasly had apparently been high-school sweethearts as well. I'd be only too happy for none of the Trio or their contemporaries to couple up as soon as they leave school." "You must realise that's a dramatically untenable position." Cindy points out. "I mean, how's the epilogue chapter going to start? 'Harry held the door open for Sheila, whom he had met at an office party three years ago and married last year'? Where's the Bang?" "You're right, of course." Abigail nods. "In the end, at least one of those" she points up at the watercrafts circling each other like binary stars, "has to be true." Derannimer's brow furrows. "At *least* one?" She asks. "There are only two, and they're mutually exclusive." "Don't be deceieved by appearances." Abigail says with a cryptic grin. "The two ships up there - the H\H and H\R - may be the biggest ships in the fleet, but there are many others. The light from these two is just so bright, it drowns out the rest. See over there?" She points at a seemingly empty portion of sky. "That small, heavy-looking one? That's the Harry\Ginny. A bit of a plodder, I admit, but it has quite a few supporters." "Who may be looking for some retribution if they hear their Ship being called a plodder." Cindy says with an evil grin. Abigail's expression freezes. "Did I say plodder? I meant... um... gee... puller! They *pull* their weight! Right! That was it." Abigail wipes the sweat off her brow, and then points up to another portion of sky, where a shadow, black on black, can only dimly be perceived. "Anyway, they've still got someone to look down on - that's the Ginny/Neville over there." She's about to start explaining about it when two streaks of green light cut across the sky. They're so fast and small that, if the three women weren't already looking at that portion of sky, they might not have noticed them. "Were those comets?" Derannimer asks, "Or stray canons?" "Neither." Abigail smiles. "That was the Draco/Hermione and its smaller cousin, the Draco/Ginny. They're powered by fanfic, which is why they're so fast. There are others, of course. If it were a moonless night we might be able to see the Hermione/Krum, the Ron/Fleur or the Harry/Cho. And if we turn to that corner of the sky over there, we might be able to see some of the non-Trio Ships - Bill/Fleur, George/Angelina, Sirius/Arabella Figg." "Are you sure you don't Ship?" Derannimer asks. "You seem to know an awful lot about it. Anyway, none of those Ships are involved in this fight. I might have seen Harry/Ginny throw a volley once, but it happened so fast I'm not even sure I saw it." "Neither am I." Abigail admits. "I was just pointing out that your Bang assessment is incomplete. Even if it were, I have some issues with your conclusion." "What, that Farmer In The Dell is the bangiest Ship of them all?" Asks Derannimer. "Right." Abigail nods. "You see, I'm not quite certain that FITD can rightly be called a Ship. Frankly, I wouldn't even call it a theory - by the end of GoF I simply can't see any other canonical way of reading the relationships between the Trio. Add to the canon JKR's interview statement that in OotP 'everyone is in love with the wrong person' [2] and what you get is not a theory, it's fact. Even if we put that aside for a moment, as I understand both of these Ships - and most of the smaller ones - they don't assume that the relationship they advocate already exists. At best most of them assume that one party is in love with the other - Ron loves Hermione, Ginny loves Harry, Neville loves Ginny - but that love is not reciprocated. Most Shipping theories are concerneded with predicting who the characters end up with after book 7, and are only tangentially interested in how the characters get there. FITD deals strictly with the status quo at the end of GoF, and presumably tells us a lot about the dynamics within the Trio throughout book 5." "So what's your point?" Asks Cindy. "That book 7 can't end with a FITD situation - the Trio's tangled love lives must be sorted out - to my own personal discomfort, but there you are. So how does the FITD situation logically resolve itself?" "Well, it's obvious that ..." Dernnimer pauses. "It could go either way. FITD supports both H/H and H/G." "Precisely!" Abigail smiles. "If H/H is your pleasure, then Harry simply wakes up one morning and realises that instead of mooning over Cho/Parvati/Arabella Figg/insert female character here he should be with this great person who's been in love with him all along - Hermione. And if your tastes run to H/G, simply substitute Hermione for Harry, Ron for Hermione, and switch all the prepositions around. I call it the Vanity Fair [3] scenario, although I imagine many fanfic writers have given it different names. It could also work, by the way, for Harry/Ginny - Ginny is part of the FITD situation, you know. In other words, reports of the Banglessness of H/H and H/R were a bit premature." "Because both Ships get their Banginess not from the resolution of the romance, but from the love-triangle that preceeds it!" Derannimer cries. "That's exactly it." Abigail agrees, "Anyone who's read a romance novel, be it Jane Austen or Danielle Steel, knows that the story is interesting not because of the happy ending, but because of the thorny path leading up to it." "So H/H is Bangy?" Cindy asks, a bit doubtfully. "If you start from a FITD position," Abigail says, "and especially if you mix in some of that delicious Jealous!Ron stuff that Derannimer cooked up. And so is H/R, and even H/G. Draco/Hermione and Draco/Ginny also Bang, but for different and, I trust, entirely obvious reasons." "So this Bang analysis is useless." Derannimer says, crestfallen. "We haven't come any closer to establishing the canon weight the different Ships are to be given." "Not entirely useless." Abigail replies. "I'm afraid no amount of farmers in dells could make Neville/Ginny Bangy." Derannimer smiles. "Well, that's a start." Abigail Who really enjoyed Derannimer's post. [1] See Pip's insightful post on Metathinking in the OT-Chatter group, #12757 [2] I couldn't find this interview in the Lexicon, but I know I read it somewhere. [3] In the novel Vanity Fair, by William Makepeace Thackery, one of the two heroines falls in love and marries a man whose best friend is in love with her. After she is widowed, she spends years pining for her husband, even though his friend has made his (vastly superior) love well-known. Only when he grows tired of waiting for her does she realise that she's actually in love with him. It's actually a much better book then I'm making it sound - very wry and cynical. From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 21:23:43 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:23:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time Only Moves Forward Theory Message-ID: <12b.1eafd129.2b40c1df@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48949 First, I completely agree with your interpretation of the Map's role in all of this. H2&H2 would have been on the map, but Lupin did not necessarily notice them, because he was concentrating on Peter. Second, your 'time moving on' theory is good, and is the basis theory for our discussions on the beginning of the "time loop" However there are two things different: A) by my (and a few other's) reasoning, the time loop is more like the loop in a roller coster than a never ending continuum. Harry and Hermione move on one track, only it doubles back over the same period of time once (or maybe twice, without them knowing?) b) where do H2&h2 come from? They cannot merely appear, because they needed some way (the timeturner) to go back and become H2&H2. If Harry was kissed by the dementor, he could not have gone back in time (or, not without some difficulty!) So i prepose that we look at the 'time loop' in the roller coaster way. Time would be the ground, it is straight, no loops. Harry & Hermione's experience is the coaster track: they generally go forward until something: the timeturner, makes them turn around. They need to access the timeturner (ie. the loop in the track) to be able to 'redo' a period of time. So Harry and hermione are going along the track, forwards in time, along the way, they meet the dementors, who will derail Harry's car (If he is kissed, he won't be able to perform the patronus in any case, nor will he be able to go back in time). However, *something* happens to prevent that from happening until Harry and Hermione can go around the loop, and experience the same time again. The second loop will be what they remember, and they won't have a recollection of the first time around, which is why we don't know what the "something" that permits Harry to survive the Dementor's kiss the first time is. The man across the lake is not quite cemented, because harry is the only one who sees him, and Harry isn't in the best state of mind to be seeing things as fact. He could have, in the origional track, imagined the figure, and created his patronus from the happy thought of being saved by his father... he then takes this knowlege into the past with him where he assumes that he saw himself, and creates the Patronus again. This creates only the tinyest of blips in the timeline, because the only change is the direction in which the patronus appears from. Harry now doesn't know the difference, and the second event becomes cemented in time. did that make sence? i had a little trouble getting my theories out here... -scheherazade, tounge tied [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From urbana at charter.net Sun Dec 29 21:51:48 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:51:48 -0000 Subject: the twins are two people! (but prefects?) In-Reply-To: <1ac.e01134d.2b40b096@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48950 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > On the subject of the goblet/prefects. > I think Fred would have been chosen by the goblet, but George would make a > better prefect. > > -Scheherazade, twin enthusiast! >] Actually I don't see either Fred or George as potential prefects (JMHO, YMMV etc.). My understanding of the prefects at Hogwarts is that they are usually *outstanding* students in some way. Fred and George are nice enough kids, but they don't appear to be very academically inclined nor are they much on following rules or helping others follow them. Their main interest in life seems to be pulling pranks and inventing prank-objects (e.g. the Tongue-Ton Toffee). Okay, so maybe they are the most outstanding pranksters at Hogwarts :- ) Percy as a prefect makes sense to me - but Fred and George (singly or together) do not. Just my opinion. Anne U (who could be way out in left field about this prefect thing - if so, someone please straighten me out) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Dec 29 21:59:28 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:59:28 -0000 Subject: Time travel in PoA (was: Re: Remus is James and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote: > Pip!Squeak, > > I appreciate the time you are taking to answer my question. > > Believe it or not I understand completely all the explanations you > gave me, but I believe I have not been able to express clearly the > reason why I am having trouble accepting your point of view of > theory 3. Let's see if I manage it this time. > > Pip!Squeak wrote: > > Prepare to be confused :0) > > In Theory 3 there is not, and never will be, a sequence of > > eventswhere Harry and Hermione did not go back in time. There is > > only one world. Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are always present in it. > Sharana: > It doesn't confuse me :-) > > This is exactly what I cannot accept. I can see no logical > explanation to it. In all my life, I have never been able to > accept something like this. It is something too sci-fi to me (Keep > reading to understand why). Pip!Squeak: Yes. It's what scientists tend to call 'counter intuitive'. It's something that works in a completely opposite way to everyday experience. Happens more often than you think; for example, if the pilot of a space shuttle in orbit wants to catch up with a spacecraft ahead of him, s/he actually has to slow down. > > Pip!Squeak wrote: > > Because Harry 2 and Hermione 2 are present during the events of > > Buckbeak's execution, the SS, and the Dementors, by the time > > Harry1 and Hermione 1 get to the Hospital scene, the loop is > > already in existence. It is not created by the Time Turner. The > > TT is just the mechanical means to keep the loop going. > Sharana: > If the TT does not create the loop, what does? > > I cannot see how a time loop just exists; there must be something > that generates it. > > For me to accept theory 3 as valid, I just need an answer to this > question. What generates the time loop? God? > Pip!Squeak Leaving Harry and Hermione aside for the moment; a much simpler example. You are a scientist who is testing a time machine to see if it works. You decide to send a billiard ball back in time 10 seconds. While you're setting up the machine you put the billiard ball in front of it, ready to pop it in the machine as soon as you hit the switch. While you're setting things up, a billiard ball suddenly comes flying out of the time machine. It hits the ball you'd left in front of it, which then ricochets off a wall and bounces straight into the time machine. You are so startled by this, that you accidently hit the 'on' switch, the time machine works, and the ball in the machine vanishes. You are left standing, staring at the one remaining billiard ball (the one which came flying out of the time machine), which, you now realise, is the one you just sent back through time... What created the time loop? The availability of a machine to create a time loop. But when did you decide to hit the switch? You never did. There never was a point where you originally decided to hit the switch. Hitting the switch was always an accident, caused by the result of your experiment. > > > If it isn't the TT, I need to understand how the time loop (that > makes Harry cast a Patronus to save his own life) is created. > > If you answer me something like "a time distortion is what > generates the loop," then I must ask you what generates the time > distortion. There are lots of time loops in PoA; it's just that most of them are extremely unexciting. Hermione goes through a loop every time she doubles a class or an exam. And yes, the TT is the mechanism by which she can loop herself through time, in the sense that it provides the 'energy' for the time loop. But, like the example with the billiard ball above, the point of decision is not where you think it is. There is no 'start'. There never was a moment when you decided to hit the switch. There never is a moment when someone realises that 'ah, if only we could send Harry back through time, he won't die'. There is no need for Mr X. Events happen the way they do, because that is the way the two Harrys and Hermione's ended up interacting. The time travelling billiard ball is only in the time machine in the first place because it got hit by its time travelled self. Harry only travels through time because his time travelled self saved his life. > > To me Harry cast the Patronus because he did something very > dangerous, which he was told not to do, he ran to the lake eager to > see who cast the Patronus that had saved him (wishing to see his > father). He wasn't supposed to do that, he wasn't supposed to be > there. He got lucky he thought about casting the Patronus himself, > at that moment, if he hadn't succeeded in casting the Patronus, or > if he just sat there another minute, waiting for someone else to > appear; he would have screwed up his life. > > As Hermione says (PoA, Page 398), nobody is supposed to change time, > it is one of the most important wizarding laws. McGonagall told > Hermione: "awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with > time...Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by > mistake!" This is the main reason why it was made a Law, to protect > the life of all wizards. > > Harry made the same mistake these wizards (the ones McGonagall talks > about) did. He changed his past without fully realizing the > consequences of what he was doing (he was just hoping to see his > dad); only he was lucky enough to correct his mistake, without > realizing it. > No, he did not change his past. He didn't run to where he wasn't supposed to be. He ran to exactly where he was supposed to be. Hermione thought it was vitally important they not be seen because at that point she believed that their time travelling selves had *not* been seen. She didn't realise that Harry had seen himself earlier (but had misunderstood what he'd seen). > When any of you manage to answer me my question on what makes this > time loop exist in the first place, then I will believe that there > are two valid explanations to this time loop. (Believe me; I am > really, really trying to understand it) > > In advanced, I really appreciate your patience. I suppose the closest I can get to an answer is 'where does a circle start? Where does a circle end? What is the largest number? What is the smallest number?' It's very difficult to realise that some things have no beginning, no end, and that infinity does exist. But it does. Pip!Squeak From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 21:59:39 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:59:39 EST Subject: re the twins are two people! (but prefects?) Message-ID: <162.1949d7bd.2b40ca4b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48952 In a message dated 12/29/2002 4:53:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, urbana at charter.net writes: > Actually I don't see either Fred or George as potential prefects > (JMHO, YMMV etc.). My understanding of the prefects at Hogwarts is > that they are usually *outstanding* students in some way. > Oh, yes, i definately agree with this, i just meant that, if one of them *were* to be made prefects, it would be George. I don't think either of them really would, neither would either of them be made the hogwarts champion *g* -scheherazade, having issues with communication today [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 22:05:45 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:05:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Invisibilty Cloaks Message-ID: <17a.1450a6c6.2b40cbb9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48953 In a message dated 12/29/2002 4:12:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, vaseemf at yahoo.com writes: > > One of the things that truobles me is how Harry can see the cloak. > If light passes through it or around it he shouldn't be able to see > it. This bothers me too... I would assume that it would work like a very light gauze... and you would be able to see where the fibers crossed if it were folded in half. So, it would be invisible if Harry held it up in the air, but, when he holds it in his hand, you can see it because it's folded unto itself >My guess is that it needs to be close to a living thing in order > > for it to work. I've also wondered which creatures it works on. Although, it does hide norbert's cage, doesn't it? maybe it's because it is reacting to norbert and the kids though... > Fantastic Beasts says that the thread that they have weaved comes > from an animal that can turn it self invisible. If this is true it > must work with animals. Also, can muggles use it? I doubt it. It > seems to me that the MoM would probably put a charm on it to make it > so that Muggles can't use it. I think that, if it could be used on animals, it could be used on muggles. I don't think there is any way for an inanimate object to distinguish between wizards and muggles to that degree... although it might have a muggle-repelling charm on it, like the Quidditch world cup? > In SS/PS it hints that the cloack may not work on animals such as > cats. Or maybe Mrs. Norris is a very special type of cat... (Sche is a huge supporter of Mrs. Norris as a transfigured witch theory) > > - Sajid (A guy's name), who is probably the youngest person on > HPFGU but got sick of kids message boards -Scheherazade, Who is probably younger ;P [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 22:14:04 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:14:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time travel in PoA (was: Re: Remus is James and Time Trav... Message-ID: <7e.333888f2.2b40cdac@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48954 Pip!squeak: > What created the time loop? The availability of a machine to create > a time loop. But when did you decide to hit the switch? You never > did. There never was a point where you originally decided to hit the > switch. Hitting the switch was always an accident, caused by the > result of your experiment. But that's where the problem with the relevance to Harry comes. There is nothing preventing the Billiard Ball from going into the time machine as planned... if you put it in as planned, this whole thing would happen exactly as you say it. But what if you had the billiard ball in a clamp or something (the equivalent of harry's being kissed by the dementor ) then it would not be able to go into the machine, so it could never come out and hit itself -scheherazade, has now confused herself [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sun Dec 29 22:14:39 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:14:39 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] the twins are two people! and Percy- a little odd? Message-ID: <31.3204e53d.2b40cdcf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48955 In a message dated 29/12/2002 16:53:36 Eastern Standard Time, urbana at charter.net writes: > Okay, so maybe they are the most outstanding pranksters at Hogwarts :- > ) Percy as a prefect makes sense to me - but Fred and George (singly > or together) do not. Just my opinion. > Ron says in PS that his brothers are do really well at school. GRanted, Forge and Gred do not get as many OWLs as Mrs Weasley would have liked, but there is nothing other than that in the cannon to suggest that they are not as good of students as their brothers. I don't rightly think that either will be made a prefect. As Mrs Weasley points out when Percy becomes the humungous bighead, I mean Head Boy, Hogwarts "hasn't made them prefects yet." It's the "yet" in her statment that makes me think there is a possibility.The only reason I say this is that a Prefect is a leader to their house. Now, Fred and George may not always be the best student or the best in their judgement, however, they are exceptionally well liked by their fellow Gryffindors... this makes them each somewhat of a candidate as their peers are more likely to listen to and respect someone they "get on with well", rather than a pompous person that they dislike. I don't think either of the twins will be prefects, mind you. But, I must say, I adore them in comparison to mister pompous humungous bighead- Percy. Percy has always struck me as an oddity in the Weasley family. Mr Weasley is somewhat of a rule breaker- just look at the loopholes he writes in the Muggle Artefact Laws . Mrs Weasley, although much more the diciplinarian of the family also seems to be a bit fun hearted. Charlie seems to have a bit of his father in him as I don't think the prim and proper type would do well with dragons. And Bill... well... Bill has long hair and earring- bit of a rebel rouser, if you ask me ;). Ron, well, we all know Ron is a great strategist, but he is also a rule breaker. Percy is the only one in the family, aside from using an empty classroom to kiss on Penelope, who doesn't have that fun loving, rule breaking quality. He is a line tower and he thinks station is far more important than fun, IMHO. Look at the way he handles himself with Mr Crouch. Instead of correcting Crouch on his name, instead of standing up for himself at all, he takes it.... He also takes cauldrons very seriously, as I yield to his brothers' opinions of his behaviour. So, I suppose what I am asking with this ramble is if anyone else feels that Percy is the odd man of the family? -Snuffles, feeling very nonlinear ;) "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Sun Dec 29 22:25:39 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:25:39 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] the twins are two people! and Percy- a little odd? Message-ID: <131.1890850a.2b40d063@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48956 In a message dated 12/29/2002 5:16:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, srsiriusblack at aol.com writes: > Percy is the only one in the family, aside from using an empty classroom to > kiss on Penelope, who doesn't have that fun loving, rule breaking quality. > He > is a line tower and he thinks station is far more important than fun, IMHO. > > Look at the way he handles himself with Mr Crouch. Instead of correcting > Crouch on his name, instead of standing up for himself at all, he takes > it.... He also takes cauldrons very seriously, as I yield to his brothers' > opinions of his behaviour. > > So, I suppose what I am asking with this ramble is if anyone else feels > that > Percy is the odd man of the family? > But I Love Percy!!! *g* Actually, I think that Perce really does fit in with his family. His family is full of Rebels, but they all rebel together. Look at how many times Ron quotes his father in the books. Percy is rebellious, he is going with his own nature against his own family. Some of what he does is not very good for him (like his subservience to crouch), but i think that, when he matures a little more, we will see that he will be able to effect great change from within, because he sticks to his guns even under pressure. Sometimes the best way to rebel is to play by the rules. -Scheherazade, defender of Weasleys everywhere! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spi00000000 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 22:01:30 2002 From: spi00000000 at yahoo.com (spi00000000 ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:01:30 -0000 Subject: the twins are two people! (but prefects?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anne " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > > On the subject of the goblet/prefects. > > I think Fred would have been chosen by the goblet, but George would > make a > > better prefect. > > > > -Scheherazade, twin enthusiast! > >] > Actually I don't see either Fred or George as potential prefects > (JMHO, YMMV etc.). My understanding of the prefects at Hogwarts is > that they are usually *outstanding* students in some way. Fred and > George are nice enough kids, but they don't appear to be very > academically inclined nor are they much on following rules or helping > others follow them. Their main interest in life seems to be pulling > pranks and inventing prank-objects (e.g. the Tongue-Ton Toffee). > Okay, so maybe they are the most outstanding pranksters at Hogwarts :- > ) Percy as a prefect makes sense to me - but Fred and George (singly > or together) do not. Just my opinion. > > Anne U > (who could be way out in left field about this prefect thing - if so, > someone please straighten me out) delurking a little.) JAmes Potter and Sirius Black were also big pranksters. and It has been mentioned that they were also very brilliant with their academics . JAmes potter was also apparantly Head Boy. From andie at knownet.net Sun Dec 29 21:59:39 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (Andrea M. Emerick) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:59:39 -0500 Subject: Time Travel References: Message-ID: <002601c2af85$97791040$fee0fea9@computer> No: HPFGUIDX 48958 Okay, first, this whole time-turner thing is giving me a headache. :) Secondly, my point... I think that while Hermione was using the time turner to get to all her classes, there was only one Hermione. Is this possible? Remember, she did say that he had been using it to "do hours over again", not to create duplicate copies of herself. Plus, if anyone remembers, when Harry & Ron are on their way to charms, they know that Hermione is right behind them, and then when Ron turned around, Hermione had disappeared. Could it be that she just clicked the time turner and was transported back an hour to do another class. So, every time an hour would go by, she would go back to do that hour again, except go do a different class this time. Could there just be another version of that hour as opposed to more than one Hermione? Wow, is this confusing... :) Anyway, just a though! grindieloe [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sun Dec 29 22:34:57 2002 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:34:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys Message-ID: <19d.e6af89c.2b40d291@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48959 In a message dated 29/12/2002 17:26:44 Eastern Standard Time, alicit at aol.com writes: > But I Love Percy!!! *g* Actually, I think that Perce really does fit in > with > his family. His family is full of Rebels, but they all rebel together. > Look > at how many times Ron quotes his father in the books. Percy is rebellious, > > he is going with his own nature against his own family. Some of what he > does > is not very good for him (like his subservience to crouch), but i think > that, > when he matures a little more, we will see that he will be able to effect > great change from within, because he sticks to his guns even under > pressure. > Hee hee. I don't mean in any way that Percy is bad, although I could see him finally getting fed up with always playing by the rules and always getting stepped upon and possibly falling prey to the ideas of the Dark Side--- this is totally a worst case scenario, mind. ;) But, Percy just isn't like the rest of them... ( swooning over Bill- 'cause let's face it he just.... "cool".) He does stick out. And, I do so love the Weasleys, too ;) -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 22:37:09 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:37:09 -0000 Subject: Time Only Moves Forward Theory In-Reply-To: <12b.1eafd129.2b40c1df@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > > ...edited... > > Second, your 'time moving on' theory is good, and is the basis > theory for our discussions on the beginning of the "time loop" > However there are two things different: > > A) by my (and a few other's) reasoning, the time loop is more like > the loop in a roller coster than a never ending continuum. Harry > and Hermione move on one track, only it doubles back over the same > period of time once (or maybe twice, without them knowing?) > > b) where do H2&h2 come from? They cannot merely appear, because > they needed some way (the timeturner) to go back and become H2&H2. > If Harry was kissed by the dementor, he could not have gone back in > time (or, not without some difficulty!) > > So i prepose that we look at the 'time loop' in the roller coaster > way. Time would be the ground, it is straight, no loops. Harry & > Hermione's experience is the coaster track: they generally go > forward until something: the timeturner, makes them turn around. > They need to access the timeturner (ie. the loop in the track) to > be able to 'redo' a period of time. > > ...edited... > > -scheherazade, tounge tied bboy_mn responds: See, the problem I have is the belief that someone had to "REDO a period of time". The history of the world only occurs once. It's never redone. It may be re-written, but it is never redone at least not in conscientious, honorable, safe, and sanely applied time travel. (In my 'Time Moves Forward Theory') There seems to be (and I could very easily be mistaken) the believe that the history of Harry1/Hermione1 occurred then they went back in time and 're-did' or re-lived that history again. That the first time history was lived, there was only one Harry and Hermione, and the second time there were two. But if we only allow time to go forward; marching from the past into the present then off into the future, then the events only occur once. One and only one time. It is a historically documented fact (well, sort of a fiction historical fact) that at some point in time; a second Harry and Hermione appeared. Time starts moving forward, there is only one Harry and Hermione. Then H/H/R go out and start down to Hagrid's, and a second Harry and Hermione appear in the castle. That is the way history played out. During that three hours, it is a historical, one time only, fact that there were two Harrys and Hermiones. As time moves forward, we reach the end of that three hours and discover WHY there were two of each for that three hour period. The reason; they used the time turner. But a new history doesn't start with the use of the time turner. There is only one general history of the world, and in that history, a second set of Harry and Hermione appear, and three hours later one of the sets disappeared. There are witnesses, that is the way history played out, it is a one time only documented fact. When we first read of the history of this three hours, we are simply unaware of the existance of the second set of Harry and Hermione, but they are there. They always were there, and they always will have been there during that three hours. During the second account of that historical three hours, we simple see it documented from another perspective. History in now written with more availabe data. The fact that Harry was there the alledged first time through history to cast the Petronus charm, proves that the second Harry was always there. His existance is documented proof that there are alway two Harrys in existance as that three hours of history plays out. So starting in the past and moving forward, we reach a time and date in history where it is a documented fact that a second Harry and Hermione appear. Three hours later, it is a documented historic fact that one set disappeared, and time continues on. I see only one history with two sets of Harry and Hermione, not one history with and another history without. It is only when you start in the future and attempt to go back that you get this dual history phenomena. If you just let history play out, you realize that H2/H2 always have been and always will be there during that three hours. It's a historical fact. When Harry and Hermoine use the time turner, that doesn't create history, it only explains why history played out the way it did. It is because there can only be one and only one history of the world, that time travel is so dangerous. If your sudden appearance in the time line alters event that are already document proven history. Then the world of physics is thrown into chaos. The foundation of the whole universe becomes destablized. It's like a bomb going off in the fabric of time. Very dangerous business, this time travel. Harry and Hermione do not alter any documented history. In the end, all they have done is confirmed or perhaps documented how and why history played out the first and only time. Of course, that's just my opinion. bboy_mn From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun Dec 29 22:50:38 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C. ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:50:38 -0000 Subject: TBAY/SHIP: Romance On The Big Bang (WAS SHIP(TBAY)R/H vs. H/H vs. FITD-- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48961 Cindy gingerly picked her way along the isolated strand of beach, squinting against the harsh afternoon sun. Shore leave for the Big Bang had ended weeks earlier, but few Big Bang crewmembers had reported for duty. She shook her head forlornly, suddenly consumed with nagging doubt about her preparedness for the coming storm. She was so distracted that she took no notice of the woman who staggered into the backs of her legs. "Derannimer? Is that you?" Cindy heaved Derannimer to her feet, catching her as she began to sag back into the warm, white sand. "Have you been out since that whole Snape brawl?" "Yes," Derannimer mumbled vaguely. "Yes, I think. I think there might have been something wrong with my drink, I--" Cindy peered into Derannimer's clear hazel eyes. "That's not what's going on here. This has nothing to do with brandy. You . . . you've been *Banging,* haven't you?" she demanded. "Yes, I -?" Derannimer hesitated briefly, then the words tumbled from her in a rush. "It's the shipping war, Captain. The vessels involved are the S.S. H/H and the Good Ship R/H, and they've been at it like this since the beginning of the list--I mean even when we were with Yahoo *Clubs.*" "And you think you can get a Bang out of those -? those *romantic SHIPs?" Cindy smirked. "Oh, this I gotta see." Derannimer straightened herself to her fullest height and squared her shoulders before continuing. "Shipping wars almost *never* take place on Theory Bay." "Well, thank goodness for that, sailor," Cindy said, lowering her voice conspiratorially. "Let's talk turkey here -- shipping is *not* theorizing. `Oh R/H are so *cute* together!' is not theorizing. Neither is `Oh but R/H *bicker* so much!' by the way. Both those ships are in the business of *predicting;* they're looking forward to events that haven't even happened yet, and are *heavily* influenced by the personal preferences of the crew, and -- Not even *I* try to make the shippers do a Bang assessment. Repeat after me: 'Shipping is different.'" "Not so fast," Derannimer said, suddenly feeling a wave of courage. "Why can't this whole Ron/Harry/Hermione triangle Bang? I mean, I know that you don't like to ascribe purely romantic motivations to people, but all the same, the H/R/H dispute is about the *main darn characters.* If they start falling in love with each other, in *any* permutation, shouldn't that have some effect on the story line?" "Oh, it will have an effect, all right. It will *Ruin Everything!*" Cindy shrieked. "There's supposed to be a *war* on, for cryin' out loud. People are going to betray each other! They are going to ambush and torture and control and murder each other! Someone Huge is going to die! OoP will have 38 chapters, and I fully expect to see at least 38 Monster Bangs! "And with all that first-rate Banging going on, you expect to see people -?" Cindy wrinkled her nose in severe distaste ?- "*kissing?* Holding hands? Batting their eyelashes at one another? And you expect me of all people to see that ?- that *romance* -- as Bangy?" Derannimer closed her eyes briefly against this assault, balling her hands into fist. "Come *on,* Cindy! Do you really think that JKR would throw it in just for an `awww' moment? And if it effects the story line, then--according to the Big Bang's charter--it's going to effect it with a major Bang, so --" "Hold up, hold up," Cindy broke in. "Just because something effects the story line doesn't make it Bangy. Oh, no. No, no, no. If something affects the plot enough, it can be spared from the GARBAGESCOW maybe. If it effects the storyline, maybe there is an argument that it is not superfluous." Cindy raised her chin slightly, planting both hands firmly on her hips. "But the mere fact that something is not superfluous doesn't qualify it for Big Bang." "Are you saying," Derannimer challenged, "that romance is completely disqualified from Big Bang? That the mere fact that you personally find romance uninspiring precludes any traditional SHIP theory from a berth on the Big Bang? Is that what you're trying to say, Captain?" She took a step forward, jabbing her index finger at Cindy's chest. "Well, *is* it? Need I remind you, Captain, that Big Bang is an all-encompassing approach to canon theorizing based on the notion that JKR herself prefers to use highly dramatic, cinematic, or even melodramatic events to serve as catalytic turning points in her characters' lives. Are you saying that romance can never, ever constitute a catalytic turning point in a person's life?" There was a long silence. "Oh, you've got spunk," Cindy allowed. "I like that in a theorist. "OK, then. Romantic shipping theories aren't disqualified from Big Bang. I will concede the point." Derannimer blinked. "You are conceding the point?" Derannimer echoed dully. "But you never -?" "I just happen to think there is no way any of the shipping theories I have heard can possibly bang. No way. For one thing, you will always have a terrible `Tew Eww to be Treww' problem with any shipping theory on Big Bang." "Well, it won't be easy, that's for sure," Derannimer nodded sagely. "I mean, Ron/Hermione is a total Dud. We've all been *predicting* Ron/Hermione since halfway through Book 4. Good grief, a lot of the R/H people say they've been predicting it since the end of Book 2, what with the `Eat slugs' incident and everything. So none of the readers would really be surprised. You'd have to pretty dense (or Ron) not to have seen *that* one coming for a while." "Oh, you've got a real flare for bang assessment," Cindy encouraged, grinning broadly. "R/H is too obvious. It is also way too popular. In the shipping poll, R/H was the most popular choice. That ought to be enough to rule it out right there. As we all know, JKR never does the obvious or the popular." Cindy paused, savoring the moment. "Try H/H," she goaded. "Um. . . better, actually," Derannimer allowed reluctantly. "No one really *expects* it at this point; a lot of people are rooting for it, but no one really expects it. H/H is a bit Bangier, and decidedly less sappy, than R/H is. I mean, at least with H/H, you get some. . . some *anger* and *resentment* and *bitterness.* But that is not quite what we are looking for, is it? We need a *Bang.*" Derannimer nods, comprehension flickering across her young face. "I know. How's this then: Hermione feels that way about Harry, and Harry *doesn't* feel that way about Hermione. It's `Farmer in the Dell,' and it is admittedly a touch convoluted. Ron loves Hermione, Hermione loves Harry, Harry couldn't care less." Cindy blanched. "Oh, come *on!*" she protested. "This is not supposed to be some sleazy romance novel. If you do this 'Farmer in the Dell' thing, you've got romance and kissing and flirting coming out of your ears. How are you going to sustain any interest in the war with all of these darn *mating rituals* going on? All of that sappy stuff will be sticking to the bottom of your shoes! "And frankly, people who are consumed with love get *boring,* OK? You know it, and I know it. They are distracted. They sit by the owlery. They pine. They gain weight. They are useless. You sure you want to read a book in which all the major characters are teenagers writing little love notes to each other and exchanging promise rings?" Derannimer peered at her. "You, er, didn't have much fun in high school, did you?" "Never mind that," Cindy growled. "Here's the thing. I have yet to hear an argument about how the relationships between the trio become closer or more compelling if you add in a romance element. The trio all care deeply about each other right now. They would risk their lives for each other. They have been through quite a lot together so far, and I don't see how romance would make those bonds stronger. "No, I think that if we start seeing major romance among the child characters, we will see it with characters who are not already so closely connected to the trio." "I don't follow you," Derannimer said slowly. "If I were do a bit of shipping," Cindy said thoughtfully, "I wouldn't ship among the trio. No, I'd link Hermione with someone else. Someone who will definitely be important in future books. Someone she cares about just a bit, but it has to be a relationship that is not someone for whom Hermione would risk her life right now." "Well, that rules out Harry and Ron," Derannimer said. "Surely you don't mean Draco?" Cindy rolled her eyes and snorted derisively. "Uh, no. Draco is *hardly* being positioned as an important ally of the Trio in future books. Try again." "Seamus? Dean Thomas? Percy? Charlie? Bill?" "Well, any of those are possible," Cindy allowed. "But I don't think they are the best choice, though. Only Percy has any real hope of being really important, and Hermione/Percy is, well . . . it's kind of *sickening,* honestly." "Neville?" Derannimer asked, her eyes wide. "You're going with *Hermione/Neville?*" "Keep your voice down!" Cindy hissed. "Yes. If you *force* me to SHIP -? if you make me do it right out here in public and everything -? I will go with Hermione/Neville as both the most canonical and least superfluous SHIP. We know Hermione has been kind to Neville. We know Neville will be important in future books. We know Neville is ripe for some development. So Hermione/Neville it is, then." "Uh . . ." Derannimer managed. "It's . . . an idea. I guess." She stood there for moment, uncertain, then decided to take the plunge. "Captain Cindy, would you consider signing me on as a crewman on the Big Bang destroyer?" she asked hopefully. Cindy regarded Derannimer for a moment, her eyes narrowed with suspicion. "Sailor, how long have you been in the Bay?" "Uh . . . I joined just a few months ago," Derannimer said, her throat tight. "I read Hypothetic Alley. The whole thing, Captain. It took *forever.*" Cindy folded her arms across her chest. "And how many times have you posted, Sailor?" "Well, I -? five times, Captain," Derannimer whispered. "And what kind of posts were they?" Cindy prompted. "All of them . . . they were all TBAY posts, Captain. No FILKS. Not yet, anyway." Derannimer's voice trailed off, and she glanced downward, avoiding Cindy's penetrating stare. There was an awkward silence. Derannimer shuffled her feet nervously and opened her mouth to speak. "You know, maybe I should just --" "Derannimer, I'd be absolutely delighted to have you on board the Big Bang." Derannimer looked up quickly, her eyes wide. "Oh, thank you Captain! You won't be sorry! I know you're a really tyrannical captain and all, and that I'd have to scrub the deck with my toothbrush, and I'm not sure that I agree with all of your past Bang Assessments, and I know that I was arguing with you about Assassin! Snape, but I'll be a loyal crew member and I've got an old toothbrush, and I'd carry your Big Paddle for you if you --" She stopped suddenly. "Or maybe not. Maybe forget that last part --" "Well, let's try something a little different here," Cindy said. She extended her Big Paddle toward Derannimer, who flinched imperceptibly before grasping the massive hilt. "Why don't you hang onto it for me for a while and let me know how it feels?" Cindy ********* REFERENCES The SHIPping poll can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=511774. The Hermione/Neville SHIP received 0% of the votes. ************ Hypothetic Alley: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html Inish Alley: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sun Dec 29 23:01:37 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:01:37 -0000 Subject: Invisibilty Cloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48962 Sajid wrote: > I've also wondered which creatures it works on. > Fantastic Beasts says that the thread that they have weaved comes > from an animal that can turn it self invisible. If this is true it > must work with animals. Also, can muggles use it? I doubt it. It > seems to me that the MoM would probably put a charm on it to make >it > so that Muggles can't use it. > In SS/PS it hints that the cloack may not work on animals such as > cats. I think that it should because the thread comes from an animal > that lives out in the wilderness. It wouldnt be a very useful > adaptation if only humans who rarely go to their habitat were the > ones who could not see them > Any thoughts? Me: I think we need to distinguish between invisibility cloaks and the animals they are made from. The animals (sorry, no books at my disposal right now) are magical beings in and of themselves, and so I'd assume that they can become invisible to any creatures that sees (or rather, doesn't see) them. No proof, just my opinion. Invisibility cloaks, on the other hand, are made by wizards for wizards. My theory is that the cloaks somehow alter the light passing through the cloak. It would seem logical that the cloaks bend light around the person wearing them, but if that were the case, the wearer would not see anything (no light could penetrate the cloak). So it must be altered in some other way. Basically, what is needed is for the light to be altered between the two folds of the invisibility cloak, so that it doesn't reflect or refract as it otherwise would have when hitting a person, and then to proceed unchanged on the other side. This would occur no matter which direction the light is traveling. What happens to the light while "inside" the cloak? Oh, I don't know. But... The alteration is made for humans. I don't mean it only affects humans; I mean it is customized to be effective on humans. But other animals do not have the same visual systems as humans. Take cats, for example. Cats have trichromatic color vision, like humans, but do not see color as intensely as humans. They also have a membrane at the back of each eye, known as the tapetum, which refelcts light. This allows them to see almost 100 times the amount of light as humans. Because of these differences in visual systems, the inivisbily cloak may not work as effectively on animals. They may be able to see light where humans cannot. I get the feeling Mrs. Norris does not clearly see Harry, but notices *something*. Based on this theory, it doesn't matter who (or what) wears the cloak. But certain animals (and Anamagi?) may be able to see or sense a person wearing one. It would also make sense that there are magical devices (like Moody's eye) capable of reversing the effect. -Corinth From urbana at charter.net Sun Dec 29 23:09:04 2002 From: urbana at charter.net (Anne ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:09:04 -0000 Subject: the twins are two people! and Percy- a little odd? In-Reply-To: <31.3204e53d.2b40cdcf@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: >Now, > Fred and George may not always be the best student or the best in their > judgement, however, they are exceptionally well liked by their fellow > Gryffindors... this makes them each somewhat of a candidate as their peers > are more likely to listen to and respect someone they "get on with well", > rather than a pompous person that they dislike. So in this line of thinking, would Hermione *not* be a likely candidate for prefect? Is she still seen as a bit of a drudge (which she certainly was when she began at Hogwarts)? Or is she not only respected for her courage and academic achievements but also well- liked beyond her known group of friends (Harry and the Weasleys)? I guess this wasn't completely apparent to me by the end of GoF. > I don't think either of the twins will be prefects, mind you. But, I must > say, I adore them in comparison to mister pompous humungous bighead- Percy. Who? Percy?? LOL. yes he IS a pompous, humongous bighead. To me that makes him the least *likeable* of the Weasleys. I'd like to see Percy do something truly daring, just to mess up our image of him, but I'm not sure he's got that kind of daring in him. But his head is bigger than all the other Weasleys' put together! > Percy has always struck me as an oddity in the Weasley family. He > is a line tower and he thinks station is far more important than fun, IMHO. > Look at the way he handles himself with Mr Crouch. Instead of correcting > Crouch on his name, instead of standing up for himself at all, he takes > it.... That has bothered me too. There are few things (to me) more annoying than your name being manhandled by someone who *ought* to know better - and his immediate supervisor ought to know his name! But Percy is such a brown-nose that he's willing to accept Crouch Sr. treating him like a complete nonentity. UGGGH. > So, I suppose what I am asking with this ramble is if anyone else feels that > Percy is the odd man of the family? > > -Snuffles, feeling very nonlinear ;) No, you're not alone. How his different-ness might affect the rest of the Harry Potter saga remains to be seen. It will be interesting to see, in OoP, whether Percy's head is as deep in the sand as Fudge's. Anne U (wondering if the MoM has an ostrich on its crest;-) From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 23:33:21 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:33:21 -0000 Subject: Invisibilty Cloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48964 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Atherton" wrote: > Hmmmm. > > ,,,edited,,, > > If Mad Eye Moody's magical eye and the Marauder's Map can see Harry in his Cloak, it would indicate that the Cloak is not completely impervious. (It's been hinted in PS and CoS that Dumbledore can even see through it, magical eye or not) So do the same old laws of physics that bind the rest of us bind someone wearing a Cloak? If they can be felt and touched, they obviously don't disappear, they are just concealed. So do they cast a shadow? And if, as I suspect, they do, why doesn't anyone notice?! > > Just a thought. > > Susan bboy_mn: Well, this is more general thoughts on Invisibility cloaks that an direct answer to your question, but you might still find the answer embedded in here some where. First, to the question posed by someone, 'If it's invisible, how do you find it?' Personally, I subscribe to the movie's theory. That the cloak has a visible side and an invisible side. The visible side has either been printed with a pattern or impregnated with some color, or possibly layer with a visible fabric. If you're going to drop it, try to drop it with the visible side facing up, otherwise, it's going to be real hard to find. Others have give theories about how the cloak may absorb or bend light to prevent you from seeing it. A thought along those lines is, if it works by magic rather than physics, does the cloak enchant the wearer and make him invisible, or does the cloak enchant the viewer and make him unable to see? Just a thought. As far as Moodies eye, it's possible that Moodies eye picks up infrared light spectrum allowing him to see heat, and among other things, do a reasonably good job of seeing in the dark. So when he sees through Harry cloak, all he may really be seeing is heat patterns. An alternate, is that the eye enhances Moody's psychic abilities, so that it is in his minds eye, or inner eye, his preception rather than in his visual eye that he sees things. Now Dumbledore's eye, if we assume that the cloak somehow bends light, it may cause some very almost impreceptable visual distortions in the air. So minor that most people would never notice them. Someone as preceptive as Dumbledore may see these and knowing that the only person under an invisibility cloak likely to be in Hagrid's hut, is Harry with Ron and/or Hermione. If we assume that it is not a physical charactistic of the cloth, but a way in which the cloth enchants the wearer or the viewer, a wise, old, and powerful wizard like Dumbledore may not be enchanted or fooled so easily. So, in summary, as with Moody, Dumbledore may not necessarily see Harry or see through the cloak, as much as he merely preceives their presents and general location. Clues could come from heat, sound, slight visual distortion, gravity, foot prints on the floor, there could be lots of tiny little clues that are missed by most people. Nothing special here, just a few ideas that I thought I would throw in. bboy_mn From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 22:37:05 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:37:05 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48965 vaseemf at yahoo.com writes: > > One of the things that truobles me is how Harry can see the > cloak. If light passes through it or around it he shouldn't be > able to see it. > As I recall in SS/PS's movie, when Harry received the cloak as a present, you can see it. Harry starts to become invisible the moment he is putting his cloak on (when he opens it and pulls it across his shoulders). I think the cloak must detect when there is something or someone touching the inside of the cloak (not counting the cloak itself). When this happens, it turns invisible. When the cloak is not in use, it just appears to be a cloak. Or maybe the cloack has some level of inteligence, which appears to be common in Potterverse. Remember when Mr. Weasley told Ginny to not trust an inteligent object if you can't see where it keeps its brains. Or how the Marauder's Map insulted Snape. Cheers... Sharana From andie at knownet.net Sun Dec 29 22:43:51 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (Andrea M. Emerick) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:43:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time Travel References: <002601c2af85$97791040$fee0fea9@computer> Message-ID: <000b01c2af8b$c3e6e840$76ddfea9@computer> No: HPFGUIDX 48966 First, yes, I'm responding to my own post... I guess I know that there needs to be more than one Hermione, only because Harry & Hermione see themselves when they go to rescue Sirius/Buckbeak. However, there has to be a more simple explanation than some of the time turning theories floating around right now! I guess I agree with the theory that the loop always existed, just some of the characters aren't aware of it until they reach that certain point in time... which for Harry & Hermione would be the hospital wing w/ Dumbldore. Okay, I'm going to quit ananyzing this time-turning! It's making my head turn! grindieloe What I said a few minutes ago: Okay, first, this whole time-turner thing is giving me a headache. :) Secondly, my point... I think that while Hermione was using the time turner to get to all her classes, there was only one Hermione. Is this possible? Remember, she did say that he had been using it to "do hours over again", not to create duplicate copies of herself. Plus, if anyone remembers, when Harry & Ron are on their way to charms, they know that Hermione is right behind them, and then when Ron turned around, Hermione had disappeared. Could it be that she just clicked the time turner and was transported back an hour to do another class. So, every time an hour would go by, she would go back to do that hour again, except go do a different class this time. Could there just be another version of that hour as opposed to more than one Hermione? Wow, is this confusing... :) Anyway, just a though! grindieloe [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, 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From andie at knownet.net Sun Dec 29 22:58:21 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (Andrea M. Emerick) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:58:21 -0500 Subject: Percy- a little odd? References: <131.1890850a.2b40d063@aol.com> Message-ID: <002201c2af8d$c9eb8460$76ddfea9@computer> No: HPFGUIDX 48967 srsiriusblack said: So, I suppose what I am asking with this ramble is if anyone else feels that Percy is the odd man of the family? now me: Somehow, I get that feeling that we are being given *hints* about Percy possibly turing into a much "darker" character... being that Mr. Crouch was his hero, and look what he used to do - remember: Sirius mentioned in GoF about Crouch turning just as bad a many of those on the dark side/not giving several people (including Sirius) a trial, etc. Plus, when Ron, Harry, & Hermione are discussing the sudden secrecy of Fred & George (with the whole possible blackmailing Ludo Bagman, etc.) Hermione suggests Ron tell Percy. Ron eludes to the idea that Percy would turn in his own family members to the ministry if it meant he could further his career. Would Percy support the ministry ( and C. Fudge) instead of his family & Dumbledore for a promise of career advancement??? Ron seemed to think so... It's certainly a possiblility.... :) grindieloe [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 23:57:37 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:57:37 -0000 Subject: Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys In-Reply-To: <19d.e6af89c.2b40d291@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > In a message dated 29/12/2002 17:26:44 Eastern Standard Time, alicit at a... writes: > > But I Love Percy!!! *g* Actually, I think that Perce really does > > fit in with his family. His family is full of Rebels, but they > > all rebel together. > > ...edited... > >Alicit > > > Snuffles: > > Hee hee. I don't mean in any way that Percy is bad, ... ... ... > > But, Percy just isn't like the rest of them... ... ... He does stick > out. > > And, I do so love the Weasleys, too ;) > > -Snuffles bboy_mn: We all have roles we play in our family dynamic. Percy plays the role of 'The Good Boy'. And he does rebel, when you are in a family of rebels, you rebel by being a conformist. The Good Boy Syndrome- Percy is determined to be a 'good boy'; to do everything right, to make his mother proud, to not be a burden on her, to not cause her any trouble or grief, to show his brothers how a decent person acts. But at the same time he is desperately seeking approval. He wants people to notice him, to see that he is being good, that he is doing everything right. When he doesn't get that approval especially from his brothers whom he desperately wants to acknowledge him, he redoubles his efforts and tries even harder to be perfect and to be acknowledge for doing things good and right. But the harder he tries to get acknowledgement, the more obnoxious he becomes, and the more obnoxious he becomes, the more his brothers tease him, and the more his mother mothers him, and the farther away he drives the very people whose approval he wants. Once Percy has his license to Apparate, he constantly reminds people. He pops down to the kitchen for breakfast and annouces, 'Just apparated'. But he gets no acknowledgement. So he apparates to the World Cup and anounces, 'Just apparated Dad', and again gets no acknowledgement. He becomes Head Boy and walks around for days wearing his badge with his chest puffed out, pushing it in everybodies face. All he wants is someone besides his mother to say, 'Nice job, Perce'. I think he could take all the teasing he brothers could throw at him, even take it with a light hearted smile, if they would only say 'nice job... good going Perce' just one time before the teasing started. But the more he wants there approval, the harder he tries, and the more he drives that approval away. Now the Weasley's are caught in a form of 'Family Role' quicksand. The whole 'need/deny' relationship has started to cascade. Usually, people who can't resolve there destructive Family Roles in some positive way, are people who are in for a miserable life and a very hard fall. Does Percy's perfection and 'Good Boy' role appear to make him happy in anyway? I think not. Internally, is it reasonable to assume that it makes him miserable? I think so. I see big emotional upheaval for Percy in the future. I just hope he lives through it to become a better man. Just a few Percy thoughts. PS: In my fanfic, Harry has helped Percy realize that the real Percy, the surpressed hidden Percy is far more powerful and effective than Perfect Percy could ever be. Death to Perfect Percy. Long live the real Percy. bboy_mn From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Mon Dec 30 00:02:10 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:02:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy- a little odd? Message-ID: <1e.5d7ff53.2b40e702@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48969 srsiriusblack said: So, I suppose what I am asking with this ramble is if anyone else feels that Percy is the odd man of the family? Definitely. Percy is quite out of place in his family. I think this is because he is trying to be perfect - which no one can do. I think Percy would be five by five if he just did what he wanted, instead of trying to be perfect for his family. From personal experience, that never works out correctly. I can see Percy pulling a Snape - going to the Dark Side and then coming back. (This, of course, is founded on my belief that that is what Snape did. If he didn't, then Percy will be pulling what will henceforth be called a Percy.) Percy could join the Dark Side because he wants power, but after being there for a while, he realizes it's too much to pay. Bugsy (formerly known as Oryomai) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Dec 29 23:59:29 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen ) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:59:29 -0000 Subject: Time travel in PoA (was: Re: Remus is James and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48970 Sharana wrote: >All this discussion started because I was trying to establish the >possibility that Lupin (James) was really the one who Harry saw >casting the Patronus when he was about to be kissed. I wish to go >back to this Even if the theory that James-is-Remus is true, and we assume, for the moment, that we are taking person-X time-travel to be true, and that person-X is actually James- How does James, who has taken on the characteristics of Remus get rid of them for a second to cast the Patronus (without a wand)? You also have to take into account the fact that Remus was actually transformed into a werewolf at this very moment running in the forest. Unless you are implying that James-as- Remus firstly ran around as a werewolf deactivated the transformation into a wolf, then counter-charmed the spell that made him into Remus, went back in time and cast the Patronus as James (all without a wand), then changed back into Remus again for the next day??? (Which, of course is entirely plausible, as this is the HP universe we're talking about.. :D But to me it seems to much... ;D ) Dumbledore says that Lupin is "currently deep in the forest, unable to tell anyone anything" (Chapter 21) which implies that he has remained a transformed werewolf for the entire events of the night. Also take these quotes: "There was a terrible snarling noise. Lupin's head was lengthening. So was his body. His shoulders were hunching. Hair was sprouting visibly on his face and hands, which were curling into clawed paws... The werewolf reared, snapping its long jaws" (Chapter 20) "As long as I take it [the wolfsbane potion] in the week preceding the full moon, I keep my mind when I transform ... I am able to curl up in my office, a harmless wolf..." (Chapter 18) These imply that Lupin does actually become a actual wolf, not an upright humanoid wolfman. Regardless of whether he had taken his potion and has kept his mind it clearly states that he has 'paws,' so he can't hold a wand, whether he wants to or not. Also, take into account that he doesn't even have his wand- "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand." Pettigrew uses it to knock out Ron and Crookshanks. Then, after that, Harry disarms Pettigrew; "Lupin's wand flew high into the air and out of sight." Which seems to take it out of the equation for the rest of the night's events (and indeed the rest of the book- there's no more mention of it ever again). Taking all this into account, are you still so sure that James as Remus-the-Werewolf could've done everything, with no wand and no hands? Whilst the idea of person-X time travel is a valid theory, to me all that evidence suggests that even if there was a person-X, it wasn't James Potter. Which, therefore, leaves the question of "Who is person-X??" wide open again. And until someone finds someone who looks "extraordinarily like James Potter" other than Harry Potter, IMO 'person-X' is actually Harry himself, which means that Harry was *there*, which means that it is actually Type 3 (post #48887) time- travel. Sharana wrote: >and I would appreciate it if you can explain to me how >the loop started (using your Theory number 3) as you say you think >suits best. Sharana also wrote: >If the TT does not create the loop, what does? >I cannot see how a time loop just exists; there must be something that generates it. >For me to accept theory 3 as valid, I just need an answer to this question. What generates the time loop? God? I suppose all it takes is to look at time from another perspective. Because Harry and Hermione live the events twice and we are relayed the night through their eyes it's easy to get the impression that time has happened twice. The way we see it, Harry and Hermione live through three hours, then go back and live through them again. What Theory 3 (post #48887) says is that time happened only once. In short- there is no loop, as such. The idea to understanding Type 3 time- travel is to take bboy_mn's take on time-travel- that is, time only moves forward (post #48944). The key to understanding Type 3 time- travel completely is to accept that there is *no* loop, everything happened once, once only. Take the idea that time progresses as a continuous unstoppable force and the use of a time-turner doesn't create a loop where time is reversed, it merely deposits whatever the fine gold chain is around back in time. There is no time-loop where time repeats itself. Harry and Hermione's lives continue on except that the world they are living in is *physically* what happened 3 hours ago. Not a loop of time which duplicates the events up until then, *the actual events.* Because you are still mentioning time-loops, I think that you don't fully understand what Type 3 time-travel entails. Take the evidence I presented earlier that suggests that time is singular and happened once only- >'This is three hours ago, and we are walking down to Hagrid's,' said >Hermione. 'We just heard ourselves leaving ...' Which suggests that >it is a singular time existence. >"And then came the howling, and this time they could hear Hagrid's >words through his sobs." Which suggests that they are experiencing >the same event from a different perspective, not merely a new event. >"And then it hit him - he understood. He hadn't seen his father - he >had seen himself -" Which also suggests that it was a singular time >existence. Also, I'm bringing direct attention to this quote: >' They heard a last pair of people hurrying across the Hall, and a door slamming.' It's taken from when Harry Ron and Hermione sneak down to Hagrid's before Buckbeak's appeal. When the reader first encounters this, it means nothing- the trio were checking to hear if the Entrance Hall was deserted before they snuck out. But, then, once we take into account that there is actually two Hermione and Harry's at this moment in time take the same event relayed from H2/H2's perspective: >'Hermione seized Harry's arm and dragged him across the hall to the door of a broom >cupboard; she opened it, pushed him inside amongst the buckets and >mops, followed him in, then slammed the door behind them.' To me, this proves that Harry and Hermione existed in the same time- frame twice- time happened once, but they were in it twice. To me, it *proves* that JKR has used singular time existence- because H2/H2 *were* there the first time. This wasn't a matter of them going through their actions, then being transported to a duplicated loop- they were *there.* Sharana wrote: >But for now, by canon (and what I stated in the message you >responded me to), it is easier for me to understand that things >happened the way I explained in the message you just replied to me >from, than to accept the fact that a time loop exists just because >it does; and that the person to cast the Patronus (even the first >time) is Harry, to me that just doesn't make sense. But what if you accept that there is no time-loop, and these were the actual events? If there is no loop, and time happened only once there is no 'first time' for someone to cast the Patronus- it was the *only* time, and we know for sure it was Harry- we saw him do it. Sharana wrote: >To me Harry cast the Patronus because he did something very >dangerous, which he was told not to do, he ran to the lake eager to >see who cast the Patronus that had saved him (wishing to see his >father). He wasn't supposed to do that, he wasn't supposed to be >there. He got lucky he thought about casting the Patronus himself, >at that moment, if he hadn't succeeded in casting the Patronus, or >if he just sat there another minute, waiting for someone else to >appear; he would have screwed up his life. Or, instead, if you accept a singular time-existence, he didn't change time at all- he simply experienced what he had already witnessed, but from the other side of the lake. There was no person-X- it was Harry all along. And another reason I have trouble accepting the person-X time-travel theory is because I always wonder what happened to person-X. If indeed, there was a person-X, where did he get to??? Shouldn't Harry have seen him cast the Patronus- he was hidden well enough??? I suppose apart from the question "Who is person-X?" the other reason I can't accept person-X time travel in these circumstances is because "What happened to him the second time?" is another unanswered question. My solution is to accept that there was no 'second-time' and for that to happen, I need to accept a singular time-existence. I hope that with that explanation you can understand better the implications of a singular time existence- no loops required. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From tcyhunt at earthlink.net Mon Dec 30 00:13:09 2002 From: tcyhunt at earthlink.net (tcyhunt ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 00:13:09 -0000 Subject: Fidelius (WAS Re: SecretKeeper needed at the Dursley's house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum " wrote: > Meira wrote: > > > I think (and I > > hope I'm not pilagiarizing anyone's ideas, my apologies if I am) > >that the > > Fidelius is not around a *location* but around a *person*. snip > Me: > > It is actually never stated that the Fidelius Charm conceals the > whereabouts of a person at all. Professor Flitwick describes it in > PoA (The Marauder's Map, pg. 205 US hardcover) as follows: > > "'An immensely complex spell,' he said squeakily, 'involving the > magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The > information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and > is henceforth impossible to find- unless, of course, the Secret > Keeper chooses to divulge it. As long as the Secret-Keeper refused > to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lilly and James > were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his > nose pressed against their sitting room window!'" > > Note that he says *the information* is impossible to find, not a > person. Note the change in tenses: the first two sentences refer to > the Fidelius Charm in general; the last one referred to its specific > use with Lily and James. The charm basically takes information out > of the realm of public knowledge and makes it impossible to access. > In the case of Lily and James, the secret information happens to be > their location. In the absence of the charm, a person could look > into their window, see Lilly and James, and *poof! suddenly know > their location (not a hard connection to make, right?). But with > Fidelius in play, that final conclusion, however obvious it might > seem, is no longer possible. > > So could Fidelius really be used to protect Harry at the Dursleys? > What would the secret information be? As others have mentioned, it > certainly isn't his identity; too many people recognize him. I doubt > it would be his location. If it were, wouldn't that mean that no one > could ever find him? From Flitwick's description, the charm seems to > keep the information from absolutely everyone except the secret > keeper. But hundreds of people know Harry's location when he's at > school, and many more know where the Dursleys live (whether they have > ever been there or not). Fred, George, Ron, and Mr.Weasely have both > been to that house and seen Harry in it. > > So the secret isn't Harry's identity or location. I can't seem to > attribute Harry's protection at the Dursleys to the Fidelius Charm. > Although perhaps the charm is protecting something else about Harry... > > -Corinth, wishing everyone happy holidays! Me: I'm new to HPfGU and have been searching for info/theories about the letter Dumbledore left with Baby!Harry at Privet Drive...so please forgive if I'm covering old ground... All of the above gives great food for thought. How about this to chew on: Can the Fidelius Charm be used and partially broken? For example, if the Fidelius Charm were used to protect Harry's whereabouts while with the Dursley's and the Secret Keeper were A. Figg - could she choose to divulge the information to a select few (Weasley Family, Sirius, etc.) and still keep the charm *active*? Or is in no longer effective at all once broken? btw - it's great to discuss HP with adults...my *adult* friends think I'm mad and I'm beginning to scare the neighborhood kids! --Tcy From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 00:15:53 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 00:15:53 -0000 Subject: Time travel in PoA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48972 Pip!Squeak, I like that name :-) First of all I wish to tell you that I am still thinking, I understood what you said but I am still in the process of accepting it. I'll post some random thoughts I've had about it. Maybe your answers will help me in my thinking process. The one thing I have realized is why it is so difficult for me to accept it. I've known how to program software since I was 13 (or something) and the process of it has always been easy for me. When you are programming loops, you always need to establish a starting point, set initial variables. To program loops is easy for me too. This is why I understand easily Theory 3 (and time loops), but it is the same reason why it is hard for me to believe how a loop can exist without an initial state to set it off. One thing that is bothering me, which I haven't mentioned before, is that when Harry goes to the lake and casts the Patronus, we are seeing things from his perspective, but we never get to recheck about-to-be-kissed Harry to corroborate that he is seeing things (his perspective) the same way as we saw before. Pip!Squeak > What created the time loop? The availability of a machine to > create a time loop. But when did you decide to hit the switch? You > never did. There never was a point where you originally decided to > hit the switch. Hitting the switch was always an accident, caused > by the result of your experiment. If I understand correctly, the time loop exists because Time Turners exist. Then isn't the mere existence of the TT extremely dangerous? What's the point in having them around? They should all be destroyed, because probably by accident, a time loop occurs, and it would be out of control. What if when the machine throws the billiard ball out, the ball smashes in your face killing you, and then the ball bounces off and hits the other ball which is the one that hits the switch? (Sorry about being so drastic). But then just the existence of the TT is too dangerous to keep one around, better destroy them all. Pip!Squeak wrote: > Events happen the way they do, because that is the way the two > Harrys and Hermione's ended up interacting. The time traveling > billiard ball is only in the time machine in the first place > because it got hit by its time travelled self. Harry only travels > through time because his time traveled self saved his life. It seems to me that you imply that while you are in a loop, you can not change the outcome of events, the loop is at it is. I find this really hard to believe. More than that, why does McGonagall tell Hermione: "awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!" This reminds me of the "Back to the Future" Trilogy, where they screwed up several times through the 3 films, and each time they go back to the present, they see how their time traveling actions affected it. I tend to believe that this is the perspective with which JKR wrote time loop in PoA. (Something like it is your choices and not your abilities who make you who you are). And as Scheherazade (although confused, had a very brilliant thought) put it, although I will change it a bit: But what if you had the billiard ball in a clamp or something, then it would not be able to go into the machine by its own, so it could never come out and hit itself. And then you turn on the machine (which is a time loop machine)? I'm curious to know if you have ever tried to explain this theory to a kid, and how did he understand it. I mean, we don't have time travel devices (nor the experience), time is an abstraction, it really doesn't exist, but we are used to thinking in a linear mode (not in parallel universes mode), and this is how we live our daily lives. (I never plan on what I am going to do yesterday). It is a structured kind of thought (one step at a time and time only goes forward). This is why time travels is considered Sci-Fi, it is not part of our daily lives. My difficulty in accepting your theory isn't new, not even recent. These are things I have questioned myself ever since I have memory. I do not believe I am the only one who deals with this specific problem. I repeat, I am still thinking, and thinking, and thinking... Sharana... From orlaquirke2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 01:56:41 2002 From: orlaquirke2002 at yahoo.com (Anna Hemmant ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 01:56:41 -0000 Subject: Time Only Moves Forward Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48973 bboy said: > The history of the world only occurs once. It's never redone. It may > be re-written, but it is never redone at least not in conscientious, > honorable, safe, and sanely applied time travel. (In my 'Time Moves > Forward Theory')... > There seems to be (and I could very easily be mistaken) the believe > that the history of Harry1/Hermione1 occurred then they went back in > time and 're-did' or re-lived that history again. That the first time history was lived, there was only one Harry and Hermione, and the > second time there were two... > When we first read of the history of this three hours, we are simply > unaware of the existance of the second set of Harry and Hermione, >but they are there. They always were there, and they always will >have been there during that three hours. > It is only when you start in the future and attempt to go back that > you get this dual history phenomena. me: Surely you only get the duality when going into the future? I can't remember the argument exactly, but one of my friends wrote me a letter that explained his theory of how time travel might be possible. He described time as linear, but traveling in a spiral. He pointed out that if a way was found of cutting through the fabric of space time, we could, at specific points in the future, drop through into specific points in the past. He believed, because there was only one 'set' of time, that time travel into the future was not possible. bboy said: If you just let history play out, > you realize that H2/H2 always have been and always will be there > during that three hours. It's a historical fact. When Harry and > Hermoine use the time turner, that doesn't create history, it only > explains why history played out the way it did. > Harry and Hermione do not alter any documented history. In the end, > all they have done isconfirmed or perhaps documented how and why > history played out the first and only time. me: Being of the fatalist school of philosophy, I believe (even if naively) that everything happens for a reason. Therefore, I do not think it is possible for time travel to ruin the fabric of space time. The events that occured in PoA were always, in my opinion, meant to occur. This was the way that the events were played out because this is the way they were written down in some mythological future history book in the sky. From kristen at sanderson-web.com Mon Dec 30 02:11:27 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:11:27 -0000 Subject: Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: > > I see big emotional upheaval for Percy in the future. I just hope he > lives through it to become a better man. > I have to agree with you. There has been loads of foreshadowing for Percy. In my mind, it started in Chamber of Secrets when Ron and Harry found him reading "Prefects Who Gained Power" (CS pg. 58) in the back of the junk store - and in the all important words of Quirrel/LV at the end of PS/SS, "There is no good and evil. Only power and those too weak to seek it." Books 3 and 4 are rife with references by Percy's brothers on his hunger for power and advancement. Ron even wonders in Gof it he would turn in his own brothers if they were up to something illegal. I personally feel that Percy will be duped for some time by the dark side. However, I hope it is shortlived. I am hoping that Percy will become a central figure in bringing down the dark side. > Just a few Percy thoughts. > > PS: In my fanfic, Harry has helped Percy realize that the real Percy, > the surpressed hidden Percy is far more powerful and effective than > Perfect Percy could ever be. Death to Perfect Percy. Long live the > real Percy. > Cool! I hope your fanfic comes true because I am certainly cheering on the inner-Percy! Kristen > bboy_mn From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Mon Dec 30 01:19:28 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 19:19:28 -0600 Subject: Re TBAY/SHIP: Romance On The Big Bang (WAS SHIP(TBAY)R/H vs. H/H vs. FITD-- References: Message-ID: <3E0F9F20.3328D874@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48975 Jazmyn peers from the safety of one of those changing tents on the beach, wondering why no one mentions that HUGE fleet of gay SHIPs, including all those Snape SHIPs lurking about FanFic bay. Could it be the 'Someone else's problem' spells on them or the 'Not Politically Correct' curses that people fling at them, causing them to go invisible? Though the Snape/Hermione SHIP seems to be trying to sneak out to join the others, people always want to fire on it cause of their age differences, even if they do make an interesting couple. Jazmyn From summer2999 at aol.com Mon Dec 30 01:28:46 2002 From: summer2999 at aol.com (Carolyn ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 01:28:46 -0000 Subject: re the twins are two people! (but prefects?) In-Reply-To: <162.1949d7bd.2b40ca4b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48976 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alicit at a... wrote: > In a message dated 12/29/2002 4:53:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, > urbana at c... writes: > > > Actually I don't see either Fred or George as potential prefects > > (JMHO, YMMV etc.). My understanding of the prefects at Hogwarts is > > that they are usually *outstanding* students in some way. In my opinion, Fred and George aren't going to be made prefects. They get in trouble way too often. Also, in the next book they will be entering their last year at Hogwarts, and if they were going to be made prefects, it would have happened already. About Percy... I think he is definetly the odd man out in his family. Everyone laughs at him behind his back except for his mother. During GoF, before the Quidditch World Cup, Charlie and Bill were battling tables, and everyone else was just playing around, except Percy who was sitting in his room working on a report on Cauldron Bottoms, angry at everyone else for bothering him. Hopefully Percy doesn't turn evil. He's one of those characters I'm not really sure of. Regardless, it seems to me that an unfavorable picture has been painted of him, and like everything else in the books, it probably has a purpose. We just need to find out what that purpose is. Now to go back to lurking. Peace, Carolyn From rbroeker at hotmail.com Mon Dec 30 01:46:54 2002 From: rbroeker at hotmail.com (beccafran ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 01:46:54 -0000 Subject: Percy- a little odd? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48977 I agree with the bboy_mn's (long) post about Percy and his role within the Weasley family, but I wanted to add something as well. We see in the books how much trouble Ron has living up to his older brothers. Percy does not have *as many* brothers to live up to, but he does have to deal with a much more recent memory of Bill (good looking, charming Head Boy) and Charlie (Quidditch star), the two most "perfect" of the Weasley children. To me, it is likely that in trying to find his own identity and role within the family, Percy tried to differentiate himself from his older brothers as much as possible. This is how he wound up with the "good boy" role. BeccaFran > bboy_mn: > > We all have roles we play in our family dynamic. Percy plays the role > of 'The Good Boy'. And he does rebel, when you are in a family of > rebels, you rebel by being a conformist. > > The Good Boy Syndrome- > Percy is determined to be a 'good boy'; to do everything right, to > make his mother proud, to not be a burden on her, to not cause her any > trouble or grief, to show his brothers how a decent person acts. > > But at the same time he is desperately seeking approval. He wants > people to notice him, to see that he is being good, that he is doing > everything right. When he doesn't get that approval especially from > his brothers whom he desperately wants to acknowledge him, he > redoubles his efforts and tries even harder to be perfect and to be > acknowledge for doing things good and right. But the harder he tries > to get acknowledgement, the more obnoxious he becomes, and the more > obnoxious he becomes, the more his brothers tease him, and the more > his mother mothers him, and the farther away he drives the very people > whose approval he wants. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 02:56:47 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:56:47 -0000 Subject: Time Travel- A Visual Demonstration Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48978 I made a visual aid to support a 2 posts I made earlier about the possible variations of time-travel (#48887 and #48970) as thinking too much about time-travel give me a headache after a while ;) I hope the graphic can clarify the variations in Time-Travel that Sharana and I are currently discussing, as well as making them easier to understand for anyone following the thread. I didn't include a diagram of 'Theory 1" (#48887) because so far everyone seems to have agreed this type of Time-Travel doesn't exist in the HP books. To view the graphic: http://www.geocities.com/sevenhundredandthirteen I agree with a singular plane time-travel. Hope this helps! ~<(Laurasia)>~ From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 30 05:27:37 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 05:27:37 -0000 Subject: HouseColors-werewolf-Ha/Ro+etcShips-Fidelius-TimeTravelOurChoices-TheTwins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48979 Sushi wrote: << while three of the Houses have primary colours, Slytherin, the "bad" House (bah, I'm Slytherin and proud of it!), is relegated to a secondary. >> If there are to be four Houses and three Primary Colors, then there cannot be one Primary Color for each House. Green IS a primary color for some few people who have a new mutant color receptor (cone) in their eyes, in addition to the normal 3 receptors (one that fails in red/green colorblindness, one that fails in rarer blue/yellow colorblindness, and I don't know what the third normal one does). The new recepton (I can't remember which of the old receptors it descended from) makes its person see blue overprinted with yellow as being a different color than green ... they would see the number hidden in the little dots and the rest of us would say those dots are all the same color. << the corrosive nature of silver as opposed to gold, lead, and, to a slightly lesser degree, bronze, >> I think bronze corrodes even more than silver does, but I noticed that Gold, Bronze, and Yellow are all Or ("gold") in heraldry, so Hogwarts would have three Houses with Or and only one with argent ("silver"). This pointed act of excluding Slytherin is the only reason I can see for Ravenclaw (*my* House) to accept *bronze*. Well, everybody knows what is meant by Gold medal, Silver medal, Bronze medal, and no medal! The poster formerly known as Strix wrote: << Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff earth, and Slytherin water. Or at least that's the way I'd assign them. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. Water suits Slytherin because water is kind of *devious*, adjusting its shape to fit any place it might be, and seeping out through the tiniest of holes. Of course, water also has good aspects that we don't see in the officially "bad" House. Sharana wrote: << A werewolf is not a man turned into a wolf. It is something between a human and a wolf. It is usually pictured standing up on 2 feet, with furry hands. >> That may be what werewolves are like in Real Life, but that is not what werewolves are like in the Potterverse. When Snape was substitute teacher of DADA and asked the class the differences between the werewolf and true wolf, Hermione answered: "the werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways. The snout of the werewolf --" If the werewolf were a bipedal humanoid with lots of hair, claws instead of nails, and a wolf head, she would have said so, not begun by saying "small ways" and "snout". I see I am echoing Cheryl Lynx. Chris fanfictionmaniac asked: << What do you think of the Harry/Ron Ship? What would Hermione think? >> That's one of the ships I like. Hermione (the compulsive liberal, think SPEW) would be cool with it, but I fear Ron wouldn't. Jazmyn wrote: << wondering why no one mentions that HUGE fleet of gay SHIPs,>> See above. << the Snape/Hermione SHIP seems to be trying to sneak out to join the others, >> It's not their ages I object to (20 years is no big different to people who live to be 150), it's the mismatch of their personalities. Remus/Hermione could work: they could learn to relate as equals while doing post-grad research together, and then get into romance. Still, I prefer my beloved Sirius/Remus, and Ginny is the only female I'm eager to ship Hermione with. Tcy wrote: << could she choose to divulge the information to a select few (Weasley Family, Sirius, etc.) and still keep the charm *active*? Or is it no longer effective at all once broken? >> I don't think canon SAYS, but I have always assumed that the Secret Keeper divulging the secret to even one person breaks the Charm. I want to know, what about people who knew the information BEFORE the Fidelius Charm was cast? Does the information go out of their heads, or be hidden like a Memory Charm? Or do they still know the information, but anyone they tell it too can't quite receive it? Anna Hemmant wrote: << This was the way that the events were played out because this is the way they were written down in some mythological future history book in the sky. >> Well, yes, it is true of characters in novels that they *do* have a Creator who *does* have a plan for them and their future actions *are* predetermined or predestined. Some or all of those things might also be true of people in Real Life (we are characters in a novel but we don't know it). But if the future is already written (for which there is science as well as philosophy), what does that do to JKR's theme that of "our choices" being so important? I know there've been a lot of times in my personal life when I was agonizing over a decision (such as which university to attend, way back when), and thinking indignantly that IF the outcome were already decided, then why did I have to work so hard deciding? Corinth wrote: << No! No, no, no, no! This is off topic, but I must rant. >> Am I demonstrating an unfortunate talent for irritating you? << Twins are not one person! Of course the Goblet could have made a choice; they are two completely different people. >> I know they're two different people, but they choose to always be together and work as a team, so I wonder if either of them alone would be much use as Hogwarts Champion. Would the Goblet be able to predict how long it would take the chosen twin to get used to not having his right-hand-man at his side? Just the *unfamiliarity* of the situation would be a handicap. I bet the Goblet *could* spit out both their slips of paper together, indicating that they were to be Hogwarts Champion as a team (not competing against each other), and that would cause TREMENDOUS Hullaballoo from the other competing schools. << And I hope to God the school wouldn't make an exception and treat the twins as a single person. >> I suppose Hogwarts isn't the kind of place that worries about creating competition and jealousy between siblings: Parvati and Padma are supposed to compete with each other as members of their respective Houses, and conceivably could compete for who got to be Head Girl (except it's going to be Hermione). But nonetheless, Molly would beat up on the one of them for not having done as well as "your brother". There were two pairs of identical twins at my university. Jim and Bob Longstreth lived in different dorms with different friends and looked very different: Jim had long hair, beard, granny glasses, the whole hippie thing, and Bob had short hair, clean-shaven, contact lenses, the whole preppy thing. Dorothea and Roberta Pierce were roommates, struggled mightily to always wear exactly the same clothes and take exactly the same classes and get exactly the same grades. It was reported that they said: "We want to be a doctor". It was also reported that they had a terrible fight one morning when they got dressed and found that one was wearing nylons in the color Suntan and the other in the color Nude (yes, they wore dresses and nylons when normal people wore jeans and sneakers) and each accused the other of not wearing the color they had agreed on when choosing their clothes the night before. Fred and George seem to have chosen to be the Dorothea and Roberta type, while Parvati and Padma seem to have chosen to be the Jim and Bob type. Scheherazade wrote: << I'm planning to write an essay on the twin's individual personalities. In general, i've noticed that Fred seems to be the 'dominant' twin, while george is more reluctant in the mischief >> Jana George_Weasleys_Girlfriend (she hasn't been around much this year) long ago proved that George is the much kinder and more considerate twin. I can't remember where her essay was posted (sugarquill??). Anne U wrote: << Actually I don't see either Fred or George as potential prefects (JMHO, YMMV etc.). My understanding of the prefects at Hogwarts is that they are usually *outstanding* students in some way. >> Whether one (or both) of them would have been chosen as Gryffindor boy prefect of the class of 1996 depends on what other boys were in Gryffindor '96: the only one we know of is their friend Lee Jordan. I imagine that Lee Jordan would be a better choice of prefect: he doesn't get in quite as much trouble, and he is trusted to commentate the matches. But we know nothing about his marks. In addition to being popular, Fred and George are outstanding Beaters. My question about them being prefects hypothesized: IF "Fred and George were less troublesome OR had better grades". They are certainly bright enough to get good marks and lots of OWLs if they chose to make the effort (surely inventing Canary Creams requires being good at Transfiguration!). James and Sirius were just as big of trouble-makers and James was prefect and Head Boy -- he was an athlete like them AND had excellent marks. I see I am echoing spi00000000 about James and Sirius. Scheherazade (would you mind if I nicknamed you Shrzad after a woman at my job?) wrote: << neither would either of them be made the hogwarts champion >> That also depends on who the other applicants were ... and the twins have a lot of the qualities that I think the Goblet chose on, not chose on good marks or obeying rules: courage, quantity of magic power, ingenuity/intelligence, maybe athletic prowess, maybe popularity... Why did the Goblet choose Cedric rather than Angelina? From tub_of_earwax at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 06:54:14 2002 From: tub_of_earwax at yahoo.com (tub_of_earwax ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 06:54:14 -0000 Subject: THEORY: missing 24H / faithful night Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48980 Hi everybody, this is my first theory I'm posting. I don't think this has been posted before. Please do respond and tell me what you think. Here goes... My theory concerns time, the missing 24 hours, why things happened at a certain time, and that faithful night. In PS/SS Dumbledore looks at this pocket watch, but there are no numbers but only planets. He then says that Hagrid is late. Do you think that he was NOT looking at the time, but at the position of the planets? Do you think astronomy and maybe even astrology have something to do with the "time" he is referring to? In PS/SS the centaurs make a prediction "Mars is bright tonight" (it is speculated at least that they're really saying war/evil etc is on its way loosely said), is this a sign that astronomy is important after all? Can this maybe mean? 1) That the stars do tell us something? That dumbledore also believes in this? 2) That Voldy attacked on that night because of a certain planetary position? 3) That the planetary position had to do with Lily's potential "protection/love-spell"? Now what it has to do with the missing 24 hours. Maybe Hagrid had to arrive at Privet Drive at a certain time. Why? Maybe because of a certain spell that must have been performed, a security spell? Maybe the put-outer had to do with a security thing at privet drive? In the missing 24 hours Hagrid would have been saying somewhere safe (TLC, maybe?) So everybody, what do you think of my theories? If they are approved by people here maybe we could even have an acronym? I hope it was an okay post. * crosses fingers * * Lara *. From andie at knownet.net Mon Dec 30 03:53:56 2002 From: andie at knownet.net (grindieloe ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:53:56 -0000 Subject: Time Travel- A Visual Demonstration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48981 Laurasia wrote: To view the graphic: http://www.geocities.com/sevenhundredandthirteen I agree with a singular plane time-travel. Hope this helps! ~<(Laurasia)>~ Me: Great graphic! I definately agree with the singular plane time- travel as well! It just makes more sense... grindieloe From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 09:15:18 2002 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:15:18 -0000 Subject: Time travel in PoA/Time only moves forward In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote: > First of all I wish to tell you that I am still thinking, I > understood what you said but I am still in the process of accepting > it. I'll post some random thoughts I've had about it. Maybe your > answers will help me in my thinking process. > > The one thing I have realized is why it is so difficult for me to > accept it. I've known how to program software since I was 13 (or > something) and the process of it has always been easy for me. When > you are programming loops, you always need to establish a starting > point, set initial variables. To program loops is easy for me too. > This is why I understand easily Theory 3 (and time loops), but it is > the same reason why it is hard for me to believe how a loop can > exist without an initial state to set it off. > > One thing that is bothering me, which I haven't mentioned before, is > that when Harry goes to the lake and casts the Patronus, we are > seeing things from his perspective, but we never get to recheck > about-to-be-kissed Harry to corroborate that he is seeing things > (his perspective) the same way as we saw before. > Well, maybe we do. In Lupin's office, after Lupin has gone and Harry is left alone with Dumbledore, he tells Dumbledore about thinking that he had seen his Dad across the lake (sorry I can't quote exactly -- the book is in the room with the sleeping husband). He felt he could talk about it to Dumbledore because he could trust Dumbledore not to laugh, and then he tells him all about it. I think if anything had changed about Harry's perception of events, he would have said so then. > I repeat, I am still thinking, and thinking, and thinking... > > > Sharana... And you've certainly got us thinking, too! :-D I am responding to both the time-travel threads here. As I was catching up on all the posts since Friday, I was thinking much the same thing as Steve (bboy_mn). I am going to try to illustrate it with a fairly simple metaphor, and defend the "theory #3" of the time travel thread. Think of time itself as something linear we are all travelling along, such as a tape measure, marked off in hours instead of inches or centimeters. During the relevant events in PoA, we are observing what happens between the 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight marks. The tape measure itself does *not* loop; rather, an outside observer would see two Harrys and two Hermiones between 9:00 and 12:00. Only *one* version of events happened, because there is only one tape measure, which is *not* looped upon itself. Everyone except Harry and Hermione pass along this stretch of the tape measure once and experience events as they remember them at 12:15 and ever after. The only anomaly is that there are two Harrys and two Hermiones between 9:00 and 12:00. From Harry and Hermione's point of view, they experience this time segment twice. From outside, there are two sets of Harry and Hermione existing simultaneously. In this one and only version of events, Buckbeak is saved and it is Harry who casts the patronus to ward off the dementors. Now to address the question of what caused the time loop in the first place? Well, first of all, in this theory time itself does not loop; only Harry and Hermione travel a stretch of it twice. Okay, then, how does Harry live through the dementor threat to use the time turner? How does *he* loop back to save himself if he gets kissed first? I think maybe where you are getting stuck is because of the nature of cause and effect. Normally, a cause has to happen before or at least during the effect. If I put water in the freezer, then I get ice eventually (cause before effect). Or, if I have my eyelids closed, then I can't see this screen (cause during effect). But what happens during time travel is *by definition* completely different and counter-intuitive. The *cause* is: Harry and Hermione use the time-turner at 12:00 on the tape measure. The *effects* are that Harry and Hermione reenter time at 9:00 on the tape measure, cross the entrance hall, save Buckbeak, see themselves do what they remember doing originally as HH1, Harry casts the patronus, they save Sirius, and get themselves back down to the hospital wing by 12:00 in order to be where everyone but Dumbledore "knows" they must be, *just when* they are using the time-turner. *All* the effects happen *before* the cause which occurs at 12:00. To simplify, for the case of the patronus: the *cause* is the use of the time-turner at 12:00. Part of the *effect* is that Harry is across the lake to cast the patronus spell to save their lives. The effect happens earlier in time than the cause does *because it is time travel into the past*. The magical object called the time-turner affects things that happened *before* you use it -- that is its function. I hope that my explanation is clear enough. I really think it is the idea that the time-turner casts its effect backward in time, so that the effect happens *before* the cause, that is hanging you up on the question of how Harry could have always cast the patronus. But that *is* the magic of the time-turner. I find it amusing to think of it this way. Harry, in the grasp of the dementor, receives the *effect* of the patronus' help and lives. He lives until 12:00 when he experiences the *cause* of Hermione using the time-turner with him. He continues living from 9:00 on until he experiences the *effect* of being able to cast the patronus. So, to Harry's point of view, he receives the patronus' help before using the time-turner, but he actually casts the patronus *after* (from his point of view) using the time-turner. No wonder Harry says, "this is the weirdest thing we've ever done." To borrow from Steve, since I can't resist: That's JKR's story and I'm sticking to it. (at least, I'm pretty sure it is ) As for Pip!Squeak's idea that it is an "accident", I don't agree. This was a deliberate action. As for Harry doing something wrong when he went to try to see who it was who had cast the patronus, I disagree with this also. After all, he did need to go out to get a better view, to know just when they would be able to rescue Sirius. Yes, he went where he did so that he would also have a view of the one who cast the patronus, but he was taking care to remain well hidden, and it was dark. I am ready to admit that if he had, as he had hoped, seen his father, he might very well have done something rash, but this never happened. He only leapt out from behind the bush when he realized that *he was* the one who cast the patronus. Annemehr Who is now wondering how Dumbledore, after hearing and believing Sirius, had time to figure out on his way to the hospital wing that it might be Harry and Hermione, using the time-turner, who may have taken Buckbeak and might yet rescue Sirius with him... From kristen at sanderson-web.com Mon Dec 30 14:40:47 2002 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:40:47 -0000 Subject: Time travel in PoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote: > The one thing I have realized is why it is so difficult for me to > accept it. I've known how to program software since I was 13 (or > something) and the process of it has always been easy for me. When > you are programming loops, you always need to establish a starting > point, set initial variables. To program loops is easy for me too. > This is why I understand easily Theory 3 (and time loops), but it is > the same reason why it is hard for me to believe how a loop can > exist without an initial state to set it off. > Ok, I took some aspirin for my time loop headache :). You've got me here, Sharana (beautiful name, by the way). I am also a computer programmer. However, by comparing the time loop in PoA to a simple programming loop is where I think you may be getting confused. There is nothing in programming that could compare to this because no program can use the exact same resource in a single thread with one copy having foreknowledge of the other (ok, you could probably do something with a supercomputer, but we won't go there :). I would compare this more to a recursive function (one that can call itself, but not get lost in neverland). In this case, the PoA story is a single computer program. Harry and Hermione enter the timeloop function and go all the way through. If they have satisfied certain circumstances (they leave Hagrid's, they enter the Whomping Willow, they exit with the group,they go to the hospital, etc...), then the recursion is invoked - the original H/H are pushed onto the stack and thn H/H(2) go through the loop again with different initial conditions that causes them to operate different logic in the loop. It's not a perfect example - I won't go into the popping of the stack and the ordering, etc... but it is the best programming analogy I can think of. In this case, the inital conditions you spoke of in your example for entering the loop were the things that happened leading up to Hagrid's. However, the condtions that allowed them to go back through the loop were the conditions that occured during the first iteration of the loop. If those weren't met, they would never have been able to re-invoke the loop through recursion. Dumbledore would be a static global variable - able to interact and be cognizant of every iteration of the loop. Obviously, this doesn't match up exactly with what happened - as I said no programming example could. I am firmly in the "Time Moves Forward" camp. It is the simplest explanation and makes the most sense within the context of the story to me. Kristen From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 15:27:52 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:27:52 -0000 Subject: DE Intros; Logic of Lily's Sacrifice; Graveyard Wand Use; Wandless Apparating Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48984 Tzvi of Brooklyn wrote: > In GoF when Karkarof is being interogated in front of the > ministry he claims that Voldermort solely knows the names of all > the Death Eaters. When they return to his side he simply introduces > them all. Perhaps Karkarof is just lying to save his own skin. He > might have been protecting some other people. Or JKR was just > contradicting her statements. Now me: Voldemort does not introduce all of the DEs in the graveyard. Ch. 33, GoF: "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others, and spoke to them." While I don't doubt that Karkaroff lies to save his own skin, I have a harder time accepting that JKR contradicts herself! ;) Potter Hermione Forever wrote: > But, It raises one question. Why was Voldemort not able to > kill Harry when he was a baby. He did not have a wand then? > I agree that Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. But, what does that > mean? Does that mean she came between the 'Avada Kedavra' curse > meant for Harry & got killed instead or was it something else? > D'dore said something about LOVE. That is so corny. I was looking > for something more logical. Now me: I struggled with the Lily sacrifice at first too, because I was also looking for something more logical. While I've since convinced myself that the Lily sacrifice was what protected Harry, an alternative theory is that the "ancient magic" that Dumbledore invoked to protect Harry while he's at the Dursleys was also invoked to protect Harry while he was with his parents. Voldemort refers to the ancient magic protecting Harry while he was in the care of his relations, so presumably it would work while he was in his parents' care in the same way it worked while he lived with the Dursleys. Since I believe in the Heir of Gryffindor theory, I think the "ancient magic" is a protection that is imparted by Gryffindor himself (somehow!). Potter Hermione Forever again: > Harry was using his wand while fighting Voldemort. Voldemort > ordered Pettigrew to give Harry his wand back! Harry was carrying > his wand when he touched the Cup. Me again: Voldemort hits Harry with the Cruciatus curse while Harry is still tied to the gravestone. After Voldemort unties Harry and gives him his wand back, he hits Harry again with the Cruciatus curse before Harry can defend himself. He also hits Harry with the Imperius curse before Harry can react. So while Harry has his wand for the latter two curses, he's not using it. It's only when Harry uses his wand to throw the Expelliarmus that the wands lock together and the priori incantatem begins. Melody asked: > Wait - do you need a wand to apparate? Have we any proof of that? > Maybe it is a skill learned like animagus that uses the > wand initially but later does not require it directly. Hmmm... Now me: We had a discussion about this awhile back, and I think the general consensus at the time was that a wizard does not need a want to apparate. The times we've seen wizards apparate, there's no mention of wand use or a verbal incantation. And in some instances (the salesmen at the QWC come to mind), the wizards are holding objects in their hands which would make it difficult for them to be wielding a wand as well. It makes sense to me that a wizard wouldn't use a wand to apparate. A wand is used to channel the wizard's energy into the spell that he/she's conjuring at another wizard or object. Since the apparation is something the wizard is doing to him/herself, I see it as them needing to internally channel their energy and focus inward, which they wouldn't necessarily need a wand to do. ~Phyllis From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 30 17:15:24 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:15:24 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time travel in PoA/Time only moves forward Message-ID: <50.1626ac45.2b41d92c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48985 In a message dated 12/30/2002 4:16:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, annemehr at yahoo.com writes: > But what happens during time travel is *by definition* completely > different and counter-intuitive. The *cause* is: Harry and Hermione > use the time-turner at 12:00 on the tape measure. The *effects* are > that Harry and Hermione reenter time at 9:00 on the tape measure, > Holy shnickies! (as my brother would say) I get it!. Or, at least, I accept this theory now *g*. Effects before Cause, eh? very interesting... i suppose this does explain it, and no need for those nasty little time loops too. -scheherazade, i have seen the light! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 30 17:23:41 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:23:41 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time travel in PoA/Time only moves forward Message-ID: <17c.14607192.2b41db1d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48986 In a message dated 12/30/2002 12:16:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, alicit at aol.com writes: > Holy shnickies! (as my brother would say) I get it!. Or, at least, I > accept > this theory now *g*. > > Effects before Cause, eh? very interesting... i suppose this does explain > it, > and no need for those nasty little time loops too. > oops, clicked send before i was ready again. Anyway, i meant to also say this: Have you ever seen _Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure_? It's a very good movie, about time travel too. Well, i never got this before... but now i do... Near the end, Ted is about to be caught, so he says to himself "remember the trashcan" and a trashcan falls on the guy's head. So, the trashcan always fell on the guy's head, because ted remembered to go back in time and drop the can on his head. The only way that Ted would have been caught by the guy would be if he *hadn't* remembered the trashcan, but then he wouldn't be able to go back in time anyway. That made a lot more sense in my head. Anyway, to apply this to HP (which i know you're all dying for me to...) The only way Harry could have been kissed, is if he never went back in time. But, because he could go back in time, he knows that he was never kissed. Right? _scheherazade_ eternally confused [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abigailnus at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 17:27:06 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:27:06 -0000 Subject: Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48987 Steve has written a very interesting post about why Percy is the way he is, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with its underlying assumption: > We all have roles we play in our family dynamic. Percy plays the role > of 'The Good Boy'. And he does rebel, when you are in a family of > rebels, you rebel by being a conformist. I don't quite see how the Weasley can be described as a family of rebels. If they are anything, the Weasley are a bastion of middle-class propriety, with a bit of eccentricity thrown in. Let's look at the various family members and the arguments for and against classifying them as rebels: Arthur: (for the sake of this argument I'm ignoring the various Imperius, Auror and Operative theories) Not a Rebel - Hard-working, under-payed government employee. Dedicated to his admittedly dull work, which he carries out concientiously - look at the pains he goes to to get his Muggle Protection Act passed. Rebel - Intentionally wrote a loophole into his own law that would allow him to create a flying car. Note, however, that Arthur never actually flew the car himself, and we have no idea how long he had it for. This suggests that he was never going to fly the car, and only built it to have. Molly: Not a Rebel - Devoted wife and mother. Almost too devoted, in fact. Constantly attempts to curb her family's improprieties. Rebel - You must be joking, right? Bill: Not a Rebel - Former Head Boy. Currently employed in a prestigious position in the only Wizarding bank. Brought into the 'new crowd' and given an important task by Dumbledore at the end of GoF. Rebel - Described by Harry as 'cool'. Wears his hair long and has an earing. Charlie: Not a Rebel - Gainfully employed in a job that requires responsibility and care. Counted his dragon eggs before showing them to Hagrid. Rebel - Resembles Fred and George and was also on the Quidditch team, suggesting that there may be a resemblence in personality as well. Arranged for Norbert to be smuggled out of England, which was presumably illegal. Fred & George: (I'm aware that there has been some discussion recently about the differences between the twins, with the conclusion being, once again, that George is the 'nice' one. My feeling, long held, is that if JKR intended to make the twins walk different paths, she should have tried harder to differentiate between them from the start, instead of introducing them by having their own mother confuse one with the other.) I'm not even going to bother with these two, especially as it might send us right back into the 'Twins as Bullies' debate or some derivative of it. We all know what the twins are like. However, it has been pointed out recently that the twins do get good grades, and in GoF it's evident that they have begun to seriously think about their future. Ron and Ginny: Both are too young to have discovered in themselves the ability to rebel - against their parents or against the institutions around them. A rebel, to my mind, is someone who eschews the trappings and confines of society, and makes his own laws. He shows no respect for rules and regulations when these stand in his path, and seeks alternatives to the social model he has been taught to accept. I don't think the Weasleys fit this mold. With the exception of Molly and Percy, they all engage in activity that is extra-legal or falls slightly outside the confines of what society calls acceptable, but none of those actions are motivated by disrespect for society and its institutions. I doubt that Percy's personality stems from a backlash against his family, at least not fundamentaly. I suspect that Percy is simply a bit of a square. He was born that way, and he could probably live a rich and fulfilling life as a bit of a square if he only learned not to take himself so seriously. The only problem is that, as Steve points out, Percy's family dynamic doesn't encourage him to lighten up. Where he and I disagree is the debate on what came first - the family dynamic or Percy's big-headedness. I don't accept that Percy's family has forced him to play the role of 'The Good Son', and that if he were to look deep inside himself he would find a cool person waiting to come out - if only because there already is a Good Son - Bill, and he is approved of by all members of the family, from the twins to Molly. I see it the other way - Percy started out a fuddy-duddy, and having been born into a family of eccentrics found that he had trouble connecting with them. As Steve points out, Percy would be unlikely to take the hazing that must pass for brotherly interaction in the Weasley family with good grace, as the other siblings do, and his no doubt indignant reaction served to alienate him from his brothers. It's also worth pointing out that Percy is obviously his mother's son, and the only one of his siblings who is strictly Molly. The twins I see as hyper-Arthur, Bill as a lot of Molly with a healthy helping of Arthur, Charlie as the opposite - a lot of Arthur with some Molly. With the younger children it's too soon to tell, but I think Ron is a lot more like Percy then he likes to admit - one of the things he saw in the Mirror of Erised was himself as Head Boy. It must be a bit lonely for Percy, being so obviously different from all his brothers, wanting different things. Does Percy seek approval from his father and older brothers? Yes, probably, but I think what he wants more then that is to be one of the guys instead of constantly being the odd man out. Abigail From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 30 17:37:32 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:37:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: HouseColors-werewolf-Ha/Ro+etcShips-Fidelius-TimeTrav... Message-ID: <147.66c8ba4.2b41de5c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48988 Catlady on Secret keeping: > I don't think canon SAYS, but I have always assumed that the Secret > Keeper divulging the secret to even one person breaks the Charm. Sche says: the cannon does support this: Sirius, Hagrid, and Dumbledore all know where to find baby Harry after his parents are killed. (ok, technically, hagrid only knows because DD told him, but, the Fedelius should prevent against that) So i'd say that the charm is broken, and they are now able to find the potter's house More on secret keeping: >I > > want to know, what about people who knew the information BEFORE the > Fidelius Charm was cast? Does the information go out of their heads, > or be hidden like a Memory Charm? Or do they still know the > information, but anyone they tell it too can't quite receive it? > Me now: This is something i've always wondered. I suppose that they retain the info, otherwise, James and Lily would also forget where they lived as well! Catlady on the twins and the Goblet of fire: >That also depends on who the other applicants were ... and the twins >have a lot of the qualities that I think the Goblet chose on, not >chose on good marks or obeying rules: courage, quantity of magic >power, ingenuity/intelligence, maybe athletic prowess, maybe >popularity... >Why did the Goblet choose Cedric rather than Angelina? >I know they're two different people, but they choose to always be >together and work as a team, so I wonder if either of them alone >would be much use as Hogwarts Champion. Would the Goblet be able to >predict how long it would take the chosen twin to get used to not >having his right-hand-man at his side? Me: This is why i don't think either would have been chosen as champion. Neither would be able to function as well without the other, so they'd be bad candidates for the championship. Remember: the only reason there were two hogwarts champions was because the goblet was tricked. I don't think it would have spit out two names for any other reason. Catlady gives some reccomended reading: >Jana George_Weasleys_Girlfriend (she hasn't been around much this >year) long ago proved that George is the much kinder and more >considerate twin. I can't remember where her essay was posted >(sugarquill??). Me: I'll have to go look for this! thanks. Yes, George *is* the more considerate one, He's there to hold fred back. Fred's a madman! Chris fanfictionmaniac asked: << What do you think of the Harry/Ron Ship? What would Hermione think? >> Me: Actually, i don't think that would work in any case. Ron's jealousy towards Harry needs to resolve itself, and in a big way, before i could even think of them together romantically. If they were thrown together as is, i could only see it as a very rocky relationship. Because the only thing worse than being jealous of your best friend is being jealous of your lover. -Scheherazade, fine with the nickname Shrzad *g* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 17:27:35 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:27:35 -0000 Subject: Time Travel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48989 Hi, Laurasia, great graphics!! Wish I had a web page so I could do same kind of stuff... I wish to clarify (again) that I DO understand that there is only one timeline, that I've used the "time loop" phrase to refer to the way H&H "travel" to the past. My problem isn't understanding it, my problem is accepting it. Please remember that English is not my mother language, it's Spanish (I explained this in my first post). Sometimes I have difficulty choosing my words to express my self. I may make a wrong choice of words. (Witch at times, may make me sound a bit harsh for witch I apologize). But I do not have problems understanding English, and if I don't know the meaning of a word, I look it up in the Dictionary. So there are times when I choose to try to express myself using the words or phrases you write out for me. For example: Kristen wrote: >There is nothing in programming that could compare to this because > no program can use the exact same resource in a single thread with > one copy having foreknowledge of the other I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I was thinking about recursive programming, and I meant it as an analogy for a similar thinking process. Not to be taken in a literal way. Annemehr wrote: > I think maybe where you are getting stuck is because of the nature > of cause and effect. Normally, a cause has to happen before or at > least during the effect. Yes, my problem has always been accepting (not understanding) that the effect happens before the cause. Laurasia wrote: > Even if the theory that James-is-Remus is true, and we assume, for > the moment, that we are taking person-X time-travel to be true, > and that person-X is actually James- How does James, who has taken > on the characteristics of Remus get rid of them for a second to > cast the Patronus (without a wand)? You also have to take into > account the fact that Remus was actually transformed into a > werewolf at this very moment running in the forest. Unless you are > implying that James-as-Remus firstly ran around as a werewolf > deactivated the transformation into a wolf, then counter-charmed > the spell that made him into Remus, went back in time and cast the > Patronus as James (all without a wand), then changed back into > Remus again for the next day??? (Which, > of course is entirely plausible, as this is the HP universe we're > talking about.. :D But to me it seems to much... ;D ) You're right. Harry wouldn't think a werewolf is extremely familiar to him. I didn't think about that. But that doesn't directly point Harry as Person-X. How do you know that there isn't a Lupin2, who appeared in human form in his own "time loop"? bboy_mn wrote: > See, the problem I have is the belief that someone had to "REDO a > period of time". > > The history of the world only occurs once. It's never redone. It > may be re-written, but it is never redone at least not in > conscientious, honorable, safe, and sanely applied time travel. > (Cut) > It is only when you start in the future and attempt to go back that > you get this dual history phenomena. If you just let history play > out, you realize that H2/H2 always have been and always will be > there during that three hours. It's a historical fact. When Harry > and Hermoine use the time turner, that doesn't create history, it > only explains why history played out the way it did. > > It is because there can only be one and only one history of the > world, that time travel is so dangerous. If your sudden appearance > in the time line alters event that are already document proven > history. Then the world of physics is thrown into chaos. The > foundation of the whole universe becomes destablized. It's like a > bomb going off in the fabric of time. Very dangerous business, > this time travel. Harry and Hermione do not alter any documented > history. In the end, all they have done is confirmed or perhaps > documented how and why history played out the first and only time. bboy_mn has expressed here what many of you have said (I copied his post because it's the one I found): > The history of the world only occurs once. It's never redone. One of the key aspects in Theory 3 is that H&H2 do not change what happens, but are the reason to explain what happens to H&H1. I'll put it in different words: The existence of H&H2 does not change the outcome. So: No matter what H&H2 do, it is what they are supposed to do. So, as bboy_mn put it: History can't be changed. So I conclude: Fate is written. OK. This raises a few questions: 1.- Why is it called a Time Turner? After all there is only one timeline. What's the point of turning it? (Whatever that means!). 2.- What happened with: "It is our choices, not our abilities who make us who we are" ? These are Dumbledore's words. What I do and what happens in my life has a lot to do with who I am. For example: If I am a shy person, I will never work up the courage to tell a guy how much I like him, and in consequence I will never get the chance to marry him (he'll never know I'm interested). So as I see it, Dumbledore is suggesting that we have a choice to decide how our future will be. We have a choice to decide our fate. It isn't imposed. I can decide to risk it and tell the guy I like him and see what happens. It is a matter of decision, not fate. 3.- If H&H2 serve the purpose to explain what happens to H&H1, and they can't change the outcome, then why is there so much fuss about not being seen? Why bother to make a law against the use of the TT? Why is it one of the most important wizarding laws? Why is breaking this law punished by something so extreme like sending the offender to Azkaban? As Laurasia said about Hermione's class schedule, she was seen, she wasn't punished because she had McGonagall's and MoM's permision to use the TT. Isn't this a great tool for students? I mean, there would be no need for students to fail any exams, in my studying experiences, I have failed some exams because I didn't have enough time to understand a concept, or I didn't understand the class, or maybe I was sick and couldn't go to the class. Why not give this second chance to the rest of the students. I believe that the main goal of a student is to learn, not just to pass exams. What is so dangerous about the TT? after all, you can't change the outcome, so the following canon (PoA, US paperback) quotes do not make any sense: C1: "You must not be seen. Miss Granger, you know the law - you know what is at stake... You-must-not be-seen". (page 393) C2: "It's called a Time-Turner," Hermione whispered, "and I got it from Professor McGonagall, she made me swear I wouldn't tell anyone. She had to write all sorts of letters to the MoM so I could have one. She had to tell them that I was a model student, and that I'd never, ever use it for anything except my studies..." (page393-394) C3: "Harry, what do you think you'd do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid's house?" said Hermione. "I'd - I'd think I'd gone mad," said Harry, "or I'd think there was some Dark Magic going on ---" "Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself! Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time... Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!" Laurasia wrote about this: > I went through the Chapter 21; "Hermione's Secret' and I found > several different reasons why time-turned people must not be seen > in each individual circumstance. > > "You must not be seen." > > He refers to 'the law.' The only other reference we have to the > time-travelling law is from Hermione. She says: "We're breaking > one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to > change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - " Not supposed to change time doesn't mean they can't do it. What about the cause-effect law? If you see yourself you may think it's Dark Magic and kill yourself. What is it at stake? Laurasia wrote: > The law is pretty much- No-one can change time, regardless of the > circumstances. Dumbledore mentions the law, and tells them not to > be seen. So, essentially, Dumbledore expects them to have to > change time, and is really saying- You're going to have to break > the rules big time here, just don't get caught doing it! If > anyone sees you changing time you're going to be sent of to > Azkaban for life (or something equally horrendous- this is 'one of > the most important wizarding laws after all!). Of course, this is > where it gets tricky, as, after all, Harry and Hermione *didn't* > change time. In fact, they actually ensured that it happened > correctly. Again, what is at stake? Going to Azkaban? Yes of course, but you could also say, "Your very lives are at stake if you see your other selves", because they wouldn't understand and try to kill you. Again, if you cannot change time (or history), regardless of the circumstances, then why bother to make a law about it. There will be no alternate outcomes to the use of the TT. Why send someone to Azkaban? Do all the characters see things from the cause-effect point of view (not the fate is written one)?, It seems to be likely from what we infer from C1, C2, C3, from Dumbledores "we are what we chose to be", and basically all canon. Wizards have traveled in time and ended up killing themselves, so the use of the TT is extremely restricted. Imagine that Voldemort uses a TT to travel to the point James and Lily are kids. Why not kill James there? Suppose a wizard gets the permission of the MoM to use a TT for some purpose. But he uses it to erase all tracks of ever been given the TT (he kills the person who gave it to him and erases all paperwork associated with it, puts Memory Charms on everyone, etc.). So he has a TT and can do whatever he wants to do. He has erased all evidence of possessing a TT. He lied to the MoM about the reason he needed the TT. Or he didn't lie but Dark Magic made him change his mind. Or some bad wizard kills him and discovers he has a TT and steals it. Are these situations impossible? Isn't this a really great risk? In what cases would the TT be allowed to be used? Isn't it safer and easier to destroy all TT's, instead of making laws about them? Well anyway. Writing really helps clearing up thoughts! I've been all morning writing this message (about 4 hours), realizing some contradictions in my logic. I accept (finally, Yes!!) your point of view about Theory 3, but if characters see time travel from the cause-effect point of view, I believe TT's should be destroyed. And if the characters see time travel from the "Can't change fate" point of view (unlikely), then TT's could be used as a learning tool. I do not believe that Theory 2 is invalid but it involves parallel universes and that is a much harder concept to grasp. And I really don't want to go there. Anyway, Theory 3 doesn't invalidate my original theory of Lupin is James. I think that one of the things that make the Potter books so successful is the fact that there are so many clues in it, that each time you reread it you discover something different about them. It's a very well thought out Septology. It's even greater that we have Internet and the opportunity to discuss these clues with people all over the world with so many different backgrounds and points of view. Thanks to all for your patience. This specific "time travel" theory has been bugging me for ever. Of course there are other TV/Movie shows that deal with other types of time-travel theories, but that is another subject. Not going there either. Hopefully I'm not the only one with a better understanding of this subject! Cool!! And yes I have a huge headache because I'm coming down with a cold. :-( I'm sorry for causing you all the headache you must have right now. I wish that after Book 7 comes out, JKR publishes at least 2 more books explaining all the clues and references in the books. It seems that Peeves came to visit me in the middle of my writing this message. At one point I had to search my PoA book for about 10 minutes, only to discover it right beside the computer. Just didn't see it the other 20 times I searched there. :-) Sharana... From alicit at aol.com Mon Dec 30 17:56:36 2002 From: alicit at aol.com (alicit at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:56:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys Message-ID: <105.237280f8.2b41e2d4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48990 Abigail Writes a wonderful post which i disagree with here: I think our disagreement comes from our definition of 'rebel' Abigail's definition: >A rebel, to my mind, is someone who eschews the trappings >and confines of society, and makes his own laws.? My definition would be someone who goes against what the people around them expect/plan for them. This can either be on a large scale, like you suggest, or on a smaller scale, like i think the weasleys do. and, just for kicks, let's see webster's definition, to see if maybe i'm using the wrong term here: >Main Entry: 2rebel >Function: noun >Date: 14th century >: one who rebels or participates in a rebellion Have i mentioned how much i hate webster? Anyway... Here's why i'd say each weasley rebels: Arthur- Yes, there's that loophole thing, but there's also the larger issue of how he eschews a higher position in government in favor of a job he likes, which pays less but means he doesn't have to take a position against muggles Molly- Molly isn't so much a rebel as the others, but she does go against fudge et al. in GoF, which is her government... Bill- Is expected, as a Gringotts employee, to wear suits and ties etc etc. He does not. Little things are rebellious too! Charlie- Everyone thought he was going to play professional quidditch, but he threw it all away to go after his dream of working with dragons. (my personal favorite weasley) Percey- As said in posts by myself and others, perce rebells by being the good kid Fred& George- Are expected by their mother and everyone else to graduate from hogwarts and go into the MoM or something distinguished like that. Instead, they want to have a joke shop Ron- Not too young to rebel! The whole books are full of the trio breaking rules. At the end of GoF he is dead set against Fudge, pretty rebellious for a kid Ginny- Allright, she's not that rebellious, But there are still three books! i'm sure we'll get something surprising from her. A little bit of rebellion from ginny: She won't Go to the Ball with harry, even though everyone expects her to, she honors her committment to Neville and has a lovely time anyway. She also won't divulge Hermione's secret to her own brother. little rebellions for a little girl... -scheherazade, luvin them weasleys [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Mon Dec 30 18:43:44 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:43:44 EST Subject: House theories/Neville Message-ID: <10e.1c5acf37.2b41ede0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48991 Somethingthat came up on another list was the House Sorting on various fan sites. This spun off into something that set me off. I thought I'dd toss it in here in case anyone wants to play with it. << (By the way, why does everyong seem to think hufflepuff is pathetic? It just means your hard-working and loyal, right?) >> Not exactly. Helga wasn't selecting for duffers. She was selecting for "team players". People who would voluntarily step back and forego individual glory in favor of being a part of a concerted effort by a group. All of the secondary virtues attributed to the 'Puffs (loyalty, fair-mindedness, kindness, etc.) are the ones that grease the wheels of an inter-team effort. Essentially, she was selecting for a certain degree of self-sacrifice. She was also selecting for persistence and endurance. The down side of this is cliqueishness. I strongly suspect the diciplinary problem that the Hufflepuffs present to the staff at Hogwarts is a tendency to gang up on whoever they decide has offended one of them. Inside the house, the problem is recast as intermittant squabbles between rival subgroups. For the record; I suspect that the Ravenclaws are the most "individualist" of the four houses and that 4th-7th year 'Claws are a byword at making themselves ridiculous by trying to differentiate themselves and playing "more eccentric than thou", dressing all in black and demanding to be "taken seriously". Off of the Quidditch field (and quite possibly on it) trying to get Ravenclaws to "pull together" is like herding cats. The Gryffs play a more or less continuing game of "follow the leader". And the Slyths are perpetually re-examining and fine-tuning their collection of strategic (and temporary) aliances. People who wonder why Neville isn't in Hufflepuff have overlooked the above considerations. Neville is about as far removed from being a "team player" as you can get. He is that rare animal, a Gryffandor loner. The Hat had a hard time placing him, since the loners tend to gravitate into Ravenclaw, and Rav enclaw would have been a really bad fit. He isn't up to the eternal politics of Slytherin. Gryffandor was the best pick of a poor assortment. For Neville. (Who rather reminds me of Button-Bright.) -JOdel From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Mon Dec 30 19:25:08 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:25:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Isn=92t_it_Irrelevant=3F_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48992 Isn't it Irrelevant? To the tune of Wouldn't It Be Loverly from My Fair Lady Hear a MIDI at http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/my_fair_lady.html Prompted by the thread started by Laura in #48756 ? and what the heck, I'll dedicate it to her as well (hopefully, she's now been enlightened as to CoS' true significance) FIRST LISTEE I've been re-reading CoS It's my least favorite book, I guess This question I address Oh, isn't it irrelevant? Lockhart bores, he's a worthless hack Basilisks make inept attacks Since neither's coming back, Oh, isn't it irrelevant? Things get ever so dull and ultra-dreary in Year Two I feel like I've been lectured by Binns when it is finally through Dobby really gets on my nerves And paper ought to be conserved So we should not preserve A book that is irrelevant SECOND LISTEE (in response) CoS flies us in a Ford Lets Harry wield Godric's sword Ends with "Dobby's Reward" How can that be irrelevant? Here we first learn of Parseltongue Meet the Dark Lord when he's still young Find Mrs. Norris hung How can that be irrelevant? Canon's ever a scarce commodity we must engage We cannot afford to spurn as much as a single page Arrange her works alphabetically Then CoS is first, you see And so, `twill always be A book that will stay relevant Relevant, relevant Relevant, relevant - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (next update 1/1/03) From danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 20:14:26 2002 From: danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com (Danny Tenenbaum) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:14:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House theories/Neville In-Reply-To: <10e.1c5acf37.2b41ede0@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021230201426.6273.qmail@web10302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 48993 --- jodel at aol.com wrote: > For the record; I suspect that the Ravenclaws are > the most "individualist" of > the four houses and that 4th-7th year 'Claws are a > byword at making > themselves ridiculous by trying to differentiate > themselves and playing "more > eccentric than thou", dressing all in black and > demanding to be "taken > seriously". Off of the Quidditch field (and quite > possibly on it) trying to > get Ravenclaws to "pull together" is like herding > cats. Just a note: Wasn't it Cho of Ravenclaw who was surrounded by her friends as Harry approached her to ask her to the Yule Ball. And wasn't she sitting among a group of friends when Harry noticed that she was the only one not wearing a support Cedric Diggory badge? I do see your point though and these are probably just remote instances. I also think Neville was put in Gryffindor somewhat because Rowling needed a character for Harry to relate to. Both of them lost their Parents in Voldemorts rage and have a somewhat mysterious past. Just my 2 cents -Danny __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 21:01:14 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:01:14 -0000 Subject: House theories/Neville In-Reply-To: <10e.1c5acf37.2b41ede0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48994 Jodel:"People who wonder why Neville isn't in Hufflepuff have overlooked the above considerations. Neville is about as far removed from being a "team player" as you can get. He is that rare animal, a Gryffandor loner. The Hat had a hardtime placing him, since the loners tend to gravitate into Ravenclaw, and Ravenclaw would have been a really bad fit. He isn't up to the eternal politics of Slytherin. Gryffandor was the best pick of a poor assortment. For Neville. (Who rather reminds me of Button-Bright.)" Button-Bright? Your characterizations of the Houses are reasonable. At one time there was a long thread discussing how House choices correlated to Meyers-Briggs personality types. You'd probably enjoy looking it up. Neville is going to show us why he's a Gryffindor. After what he has been through with his parents, he shows courage just going to see them at St. Mungo's with his gran. I'm not sure I agree with you Neville is a "loner." He's probably despearate to be accepted, to belong, but he may feel his clumsiness and absent-mindedness get in the way, which is partly right. I suspect his loner status is involuntary. Neville has shown Gryffindor courage in standing up to his friends for what he thought was right, and stuck with them; he tried to warn the Trio before they were caught with Norbert. I believe he will show that courage again, and pay for it. I can't prove it, but when they put up a Wall to the Second Voldemort War, his name will be on it. From constancevigilance at yahoo.com Mon Dec 30 21:14:22 2002 From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:14:22 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48995 vaseemf at y... writes: >One of the things that truobles me is how Harry can see the > cloak. If light passes through it or around it he shouldn't be > able to see it. > For those who get National Geographic, in this month's edition, there is an article that discusses, among other things, "Active Camouflage". This is a garment, looking remarkably like a cloak, that is made from spider silk. There is some kind of technology added to it so that it projects to any viewer the view that is behind it, rendering the wearer pretty darn close to invisable, other than a slight distortion. Thus, muggle technology directly simulates magic in the real world! :) But maybe the invisibility cloak does something similar? The article doesn't address the throwing of shadows that brought up this thread in the first place, but in the pictures in the magazine, people stand close enough to walls so that that is less of a problem. Maybe Harry and co. do something similar? By the way, the spider silk is created by genetically engineered goats. Is this the result of Aberforth's experiments? Just wondering. ~ Constance Vigilance ~ From MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Dec 30 21:31:04 2002 From: MITCHBAILEY82 at HOTMAIL.COM (mitchbailey82 ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:31:04 -0000 Subject: Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, srsiriusblack at a... wrote: > > In a message dated 29/12/2002 17:26:44 Eastern Standard Time, > alicit at a... writes: > > > But I Love Percy!!! *g* Actually, I think that Perce really does > > > fit in with his family. His family is full of Rebels, but they > > > all rebel together. > > > ...edited... > > >Alicit > > > > > > Snuffles: > > > > Hee hee. I don't mean in any way that Percy is bad, ... ... ... > > > > But, Percy just isn't like the rest of them... ... ... He does stick > > out. > > > > And, I do so love the Weasleys, too ;) > > > > -Snuffles > > bboy_mn: > > We all have roles we play in our family dynamic. Percy plays the role > of 'The Good Boy'. And he does rebel, when you are in a family of > rebels, you rebel by being a conformist. > > The Good Boy Syndrome- > Percy is determined to be a 'good boy'; to do everything right, to > make his mother proud, to not be a burden on her, to not cause her any > trouble or grief, to show his brothers how a decent person acts. > > But at the same time he is desperately seeking approval. He wants > people to notice him, to see that he is being good, that he is doing > everything right. When he doesn't get that approval especially from > his brothers whom he desperately wants to acknowledge him, he > redoubles his efforts and tries even harder to be perfect and to be > acknowledge for doing things good and right. Me: I agree with you to a degree however I don't see him wanting approval from his brothers as much as he wants it from his Dad. As I read through the books and the interactions within the family I notice that Percy seems to get the less attention from his Dad. In COS when the Twins and Ron fly the car the get a positive response from their Dad he is interested in how well the car flew and is less than secretly pleased in a way with them. However we never see him being proud of Percy or praising Percy. In POA in the leaky cauldron we see Molly being actively pleased that Percy's been made head boy but we get no such feelings from Arthur. In fact he laughs at a joke that the twins make about Percy being made head boy.(POA CH4)When Percy re-asks why they are getting cars from the ministry to drive them to the station and after this event he re-asks the question - here he is trying to be adult and to make his father reply to him as a mature person he is actively seeking his fathers approval. Yet in GOF we see Percy giving Crouch this kind of attention and ignoring his Dad. I got the feeling over the world cup aftermath episode that Percy had kind of given up seeking his fathers approval and was now trying to get Crouch's approval, in fact he openly disagrees with his Dad about this and openly says thing against his father, seems to me that Percy was in some way rebelling against his father after all if he can't get his fathers attention by agreeing/doing the right things maybe he can get it by openly defying him... I don't personally see Percy as a weak character in fact I see him as a strong character an example of this is in COS when he confronts Ron about not only being in a Girls Bathroom but about being in an Out Of Order girls bathroom. I've always seen this as Percy 1) doing his jobs (prefects at my school had to make sure no one was misbehaving in the toilets) and 2) worried that Ron will get into more trouble and get himself expelled. He certainly isn't a coward - by the way he helped his older brothers and Dad get the muggles from the Death Eaters. I don't believe that Percy will willingly join the Death Eaters or willing help them. I believe that Percy will do what he believes is right no matter what the circumstances/payment/Consequences, As for whether he'll choose Fudge or Dumbledore? I believe that it will be Percy's respect of Dumbledore that will keep him on Dumbledores side. Michelle From rmatovic at ssk.com Mon Dec 30 22:33:41 2002 From: rmatovic at ssk.com (Rebecca M ) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:33:41 -0000 Subject: Percy- a little odd? In-Reply-To: <1e.5d7ff53.2b40e702@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48997 Personally, I don't think that rebel/conformist is the most important dichotomy in analyzing the Weasley's and how Percy is different. Pragmatism/idealism and tolerance for disorder are more dominant issues. Also there's an issue about the degree of talent among the children, and there need for approval from authority figures versus their independence of mind (a slightly different quality than rebelliosness). Arthur -- Most distinguished by his idealism: willing to sacrifice pragmatic pursuit of higher position to do what he loves, not only tolerates but embraces/loves/thrives on the chaos of a home with seven children. Indepedent of mind. Molly -- Most distinguished by her pragmatism (and more or less alone in this among the family), but also lovingly tolerant of her husband's idealism and the chaos of their life. Less independent of mind. Bill -- Most distinguished by brilliance coupled with independent spirit.. Also the most pragmatic (why else go to Gringott's?) of the children (and thus winning Molly's approval the most), but with a true independent spirit. Charlie -- Probably most like Arthur of the kids -- pursues his love of dragons in an idealistic manner. F&G: Very talented, but their love of a good joke supersedes any practical considerations (and their pursuit of what they love is part fits well with the family traits of idealism/independence). All of the above are very fundamentally comfortable in their own skins. Percy -- Pragmatic and the only lover of order for order's sake in the clan. Not comfortable in his own skin because he feels at odds with his family based on his love and respect for order. Bright, but not as talented as his two older brothers, or perhaps even as the twins. Works hard to compensate for his lesser talent. The only one who actively eskews independence in favor of deferring to authority. So it is his love of order and his comparative lack of idealism that make him seem out of place in his family. I think what we'll see with him is that he has some of the same personality traits as Fudge and company, but that he ends up doing something different with that basic material by recognizing the need to be a champion for good in a crunch. Fits with one of JKR's meta- themes of innate characteristics being secondary to what one chooses to do with those characteristics. Ron -- struggles with some of the same concerns about comparative talent as Percy. More evenly split between the poles of idealism and pragmatism than other clan members. Thrives in the loving chaos of his family, but not entirely sure he approves of it. Potential to be very like Percy -- but doesn't crave approval as much as P. Ginny -- A bit lost as the only girl and the youngest. Craves approval like Percy. Not comfortable in her own skin. I'll bet she either dies or develops to be very like Molly. Rebecca From suzchiles at pobox.com Mon Dec 30 22:59:28 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:59:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy- a little odd? and the Wonderful Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48998 Michelle said ... > I believe that Percy will do what he believes is right no matter what > the circumstances/payment/Consequences, As for whether he'll choose > Fudge or Dumbledore? I believe that it will be Percy's respect of > Dumbledore that will keep him on Dumbledores side. I agree with you, Michelle, that in the end, Percy will be an ardent supporter of Dumbledore. I do believe, though, that his loyalty to the MoM will cast him on Fudge's side at the beginning. I think something will happen that will cause Percy to see the light and that he will return to Dumbledore's side. Suzanne From suzloua at hotmail.com Mon Dec 30 23:27:38 2002 From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:27:38 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloaks and Lupin the man/werewolf(PoA time travel James/Remus thing) References: <1041233315.2292.52430.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 48999 >Susan: > If Mad Eye Moody's magical eye and the Marauder's Map can see Harry in his Cloak, it would indicate that the Cloak is not completely impervious. (It's been hinted in PS and CoS that Dumbledore can even see through it, magical eye or not) So do the same old laws of physics that bind the rest of us bind someone wearing a Cloak? If they can be felt and touched, they obviously don't disappear, they are just concealed. So do they cast a shadow? And if, as I suspect, they do, why doesn't anyone notice?! >bboy_mn: As far as Moodies eye, it's possible that Moodies eye picks up infrared light spectrum allowing him to see heat, and among other things, do a reasonably good job of seeing in the dark. So when he sees through Harry cloak, all he may really be seeing is heat patterns. >An alternate, is that the eye enhances Moody's psychic abilities, so that it is in his minds eye, or inner eye, his preception rather than in his visual eye that he sees things. Me: I think this is probably more likely, that Moody can sense that "Harry Potter is under that cloak" rather than heat patterns which would just tell him that "someone short is standing under that cloak, it must be a student, oh, I bet it's Harry Potter" as he can see Harry mouthing at him "It's mine!" about the map. If it was just a heat pattern, he might GUESS that from any possible agitation of the outline, but he wouldn't react as quickly as he does (I don't think!) >bboy: >If we assume that it is not a physical charactistic of the cloth, but a way in which the cloth enchants the wearer or the viewer, a wise, old, and powerful wizard like Dumbledore may not be enchanted or fooled so easily. >So, in summary, as with Moody, Dumbledore may not necessarily see Harry or see through the cloak, as much as he merely preceives their presents and general location. Clues could come from heat, sound, slight visual distortion, gravity, foot prints on the floor, there could be lots of tiny little clues that are missed by most people. Me again: I think that the idea of Dumbledore the powerful wizard seeing throught the cloak is a good one, although I personally think he'd spot the footprints and distortions and the like. The reason I like the Dumbledore the Powerful thing is because it helps answer another question to me - why James Potter and his family, who were being hunted down by a very evil and powerful wizard, gave their sodding Invisibility Cloak to Dumbledore for safekeeping!! If Voldemort could see THROUGH the cloaks, like Dumbledore - well, it'd work on DE's, but if V himself is looking for you, you may as well try and protect your valuables! And as far as the PoA time travel/Lupin casting the Patronus thread goes - didn't Lupin's wand get nabbed by Pettigrew as soon as he Changed? I think Lupin was a real wolf, not a humanoid guy - he was no way in a state to find his wand and cast a Patronus without anyone seeing him - Dog!Sirius attacked him as it was dropped and chased him away from HHR! Oh yeah, and the Michael J Fox movie in which he became a teenage werewolf was called, um, Teen Wolf. Doy ;) Susan (who, like, LOVED that movie when she was a kid) From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 00:22:51 2002 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:22:51 -0000 Subject: Time Travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49000 Sharana wrote: >Anyway, Theory 3 doesn't invalidate my original theory of Lupin is >James. Absolutely right. And before we all got caught up in the time-travel aspects no-one yet could conclusively prove you wrong either. Sharana wrote: >Wizards have traveled in time and ended up killing themselves, so >the use of the TT is extremely restricted. Imagine that Voldemort >uses a TT to travel to the point James and Lily are kids. Why not >kill James there? I also often wonder about McGonagall's comment about killing your past self. I consider it more of a scare tactic to keep Hermione in line. Because, theoretically, if you kill your past self, you wouldn't live to go back in time and do the killing- it is a paradox. Sharana wrote: >Isn't this a great tool for students? I mean, there would be no need >for students to fail any exams, in my studying experiences, I have >failed some exams because I didn't have enough time to understand a >concept, or I didn't understand the class, or maybe I was sick and >couldn't go to the class. Why not give this second chance to the >rest of the students. I believe that the main goal of a student is >to learn, not just to pass exams. The only problem is that the consequences of extended time-travel do horrible things to one's health- look at poor Hermione- exhausted and fatigued, and she was at most only doing a couple of hours back everyday. The greatest tool for learning would be a different type of time- turner; one that worked on the Ground-Hog Day Theory (I neglected to bring it up as an option in my initial post because it was irrelevant, but this seems to bring it on-topic). In *that* time- travel theory you get deposited back at whatever state you were in when the loop started- regardless of whether you drove off a cliff or ended up in jail and have complete memory of the experience. In this instance time is reversible and at the end of the designated time someone just presses the rewind button and you wake up exactly as you were. (I didn't bring it up before because it doesn't have the necessary factor of being able to interact with oneself in two forms which is essential for the HP time-travel to work) This would be excellent for learning. Hermione could just keep rewinding time, sitting through a class, learning about a theory, then rewind and enter the loop in the same non-exhausted, non-stressed state she went in, and head off to another class in perfect attentiveness. The only bad thing being that she wouldn't be able to take anything with her- no notes or written work (as when time was reversed, they were unwritten). She'd just need to get someone to give her copies. How perfect would *that* be. If this kind of time-travel existed imagine the massive difference the night's events would have taken. Harry and Hermione go back in time, they enter standing next to Ron listening to hear if there's anyone in the Entrance Hall But with full knowledge of Scabbers and Sirius et al. They sneak down to Hagrid's, grab the milk jug with Scabbers in it, wait for Dumbledore to arrive, go; "Ah ha! Do a little 'make this animagus show his true form' spell" Peter Pettigrew falls on the floor, Lupin runs down, Snape follows him, Dumbledore send Snape back to get the wolfsbane potion, Lupin tells his stuff, Pettigrew confesses, Lupin doesn't transform and then someone runs outside and hugs Sirius. Ah! Now that would be a happy ending, a major anticlimax no doubt, but a very happy ending ;) Sharana wrote: >The existence of H&H2 does not change the outcome. Absolutely. In fact, the outcome is relying on H2/H2. They are actually creating the outcome They are necessary and indispensable components of it- only they don't realise it yet. The journey H2/H2 take back is just as much about making things happen, as it is understanding them, and going on an emotional discovery. Think about what state Harry goes in- ignorant to time-travel, feelings of futility and that he couldn't change anything and with the question of the caster of the Patronus. Then look at how he comes out of the experience- he now understands fully the events of the night, has found his father's spirit inside himself, and now knows that Sirius and Buckbeak are safe, he has a father figure to rely on. All in all, Harry's emotional response to what happens is certainly a worthwhile cause for him to go back in time. Sharana wrote: >If H&H2 serve the purpose to explain what happens to H&H1, and >they can't change the outcome, then why is there so much fuss >about not being seen? Why bother to make a law against the use >of the TT? Why is it one of the most important wizarding laws? >Why is breaking this law punished by something so extreme like >sending the offender to Azkaban? Sharana also wrote: >Again, if you cannot change time (or history), regardless of the >circumstances, then why bother to make a law about it. There will be >no alternate outcomes to the use of the TT. Why send someone to >Azkaban? Sharana also wrote: > What happened with: "It is our choices, not our abilities who >make us who we are" ? This is going to sound very, very, very out there, and it's a good thing that you said you can understand and accept a singular time line. Try to think conceptually, it certainly helped me get me head around this. The idea being that when Harry and Hermione go back in time it's the first time, so essentially they have full control over what happens. It's never happened before. This is the first time it has ever been 10:00pm on June the 6th. (with me so far?). Even though Harry and Hermione have experienced the night before, that is all currently in the future. Like, when Lupin enters the tunnel Harry and Hermione *know* that Snape will follow. It hasn't happened yet, even Snape himself doesn't even realise that he's going to do it yet, but Harry and Hermione do. In that sense, it seems that Snape has no choice over his actions- But of course he does, we all say! He didn't have to go in! He chose to. But not from the perspective of H2/H2. When Harry and Hermione chase after Ron when Sirius is dragging him- they chose to do that. Of course they did- they saw their friend in peril and acted out of loyalty and concern and bravery. But from the perspective of H2/H2 they *had* to follow Ron. It wasn't a choice, it was a necessary action that was forced to happen, even though Harry and Hermione weren't aware of it at the time. When you start thinking about it like that, Harry noble and valiant action of sparing Wormtail in the Shrieking Shack wasn't a choice. This is when things get a bit iffy because that action was a defining moment for Harry- it was a major significant moment when Harry defined himself. The point I'm trying to make is that from H2/H2's perspective everything all the non-time-turned people do *isn't* a choice. And we, as readers (who have been following the story from Harry's experiences not and external point of view) know that everything the time-turned people did wasn't a choice either- Harry *had* to cast the Patronus- it wasn't a choice, he'd already done it. So, therefore, no-one has a choice. It's not just the time- turned people's actions that are governed by predestination, it's *everyone's.* Right? I say, wrong. Getting back to what I said earlier, there was only ever one 10:00pm of the 6th of June. Which means that it's the first and only time it happened. Harry2 could have done *whatever* he wanted. He did not have to save Buckbeak, he did not have to cast the Patronus. It was the first time- there's no guarantee that everything that he thought he witnessed initially as Harry1 was going to happen exactly to plan- it was all in the future. The point being that whatever he did, that's what Harry1 was going to react to and become part of his memory. Harry wanted to change the events, but didn't, Harry tried to save Buckbeak and succeeded, Harry had no intention of casting that Patronus, but did. Harry2 had full control over his actions, just the same as Harry1 did even though from the other one's perspective they didn't. Because these choices were simultaneous, but made consecutively by the same person it's harder to understand, but essentially, Harry1 was choosing to continue on going down the tunnel to rescue his friend at the same time Harry2 was choosing not to steal the invisibility cloak from Snape. (the reason Harry2 made this choice was because he was relying on his memory of the event from another point of view- a point of view which included Snape taking the cloak) Sure, they happened one after the other from Harry's perspective, but from the external point of view of time, they were occurring simultaneously. It's better to think of each Harry as an independent and individual person. Harry2 chose to cast the Patronus before Harry1 had even seen him do it. Consequently, when Harry1 does see him (after its' already done) Harry1 chooses to interpret Harry2 as James Potter as a direct reaction to Harry2's choice. Harry2 chose to save Beaky, Macnair chose to swing his axe into the fence in frustration, Hagrid chose to howl in jubilation and Harry and Hermione and Ron chose to interpret that as Beaky's execution. Every action was a choice-whether it occurred simultaneous to another choice, or caused it, or was directly proportionate to another choice. The biggest factor in determining what choices to make is memory. Harry decides to trust his memory. He didn't have to. He could have ignored his experiences of the events, but by choosing not to, Harry2 was, in fact, ensuring that his memory of the events from inside the Shrieking Shack were synonymous with what happened. He interacted with the events at a simultaneous time to which Harry1 was making choices, and hence forging the memories which Harry2 is relying on. I think I've just confused myself further. The point I was trying to make was: there is a way of looking at the events which gives every character a free choice. You just have to think that the things that *had* to happen (the Patronus across the lake) weren't secondary or predestined, but choices made simultaneously by independent people with the additional factor of memory influencing their actions. What I've tried to demonstrate was that whilst there can never be a difference in the overall outcome of the events (it would create a paradox and negate all human existence), time only happened once, you can't change the past, but you had a choice in it at the time- whether you were on one side of the lake, or the other. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From sixhoursahead at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 01:21:16 2002 From: sixhoursahead at yahoo.com (Angela Evans) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:21:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021231012116.98461.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49002 vaseemf at y... writes: >One of the things that truobles me is how Harry can see the > cloak. If light passes through it or around it he shouldn't be > able to see it. > The theories on light distortion are good and make sense, but they lead to all these other problems like shadows, and the actual cloak being invisible, etc. I think people are trying to give the cloak's powers too much of a "scientific" explanation. Magic in Potterverse completely disregards the laws of nature and physics, the invisibility cloak doesn't have to "work"in any way we can explain. It is simply magic and it makes you invisible. And not all invisibility is the same. For example we CAN see the invisibility cloak (silver), but we (or the poor guy at Flourish and Blotts) could NOT see the Invisible Book of Invisibility. I guess I just do not see this as something that needs to be "explained" rationally, using "muggle science" if you will. It is like a wizarding radio. If you saw a wizarding radio (or wireless) and it was playing some tune, you could explain how a radio works, how the sounds travels and comes out the speakers, but that simply is not how a wizarding radio works, it is just magic. ANGELA --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Dec 31 01:44:16 2002 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:44:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Invisibility Cloak References: <20021231012116.98461.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3E10F670.F6CBA97C@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49003 Angela Evans wrote: > > The theories on light distortion are good and make sense, but they > lead to all these other problems like shadows, and the actual cloak > being invisible, etc. I think people are trying to give the cloak's > powers too much of a "scientific" explanation. Magic in Potterverse > completely disregards the laws of nature and physics, the invisibility > cloak doesn't have to "work"in any way we can explain. It is simply > magic and it makes you invisible. And not all invisibility is the > same. For example we CAN see the invisibility cloak (silver), but we > (or the poor guy at Flourish and Blotts) could NOT see the Invisible > Book of Invisibility. I guess I just do not see this as something > that needs to be "explained" rationally, using "muggle science" if you > will. It is like a wizarding radio. If you saw a wizarding radio (or > wireless) and it was playing some tune, you could explain how a radio > works, how the sounds travels and comes out the speakers, but that > simply is not how a wizarding radio works, it is just magic. > > ANGELA > How in fact did the poor guy at Flourish and Blotts even know for sure the books had been delivered? Sounds like a Fred and George kind of scam. Sell 100 copies of 'Invisible Book of Invisibility' and pretend to deliver them. The poor store owners would go nuts. ;) As for Dumbledore, I suspect those glasses he wears might be magical and allow him to see a lot of things, much like Moody's eye does. I would not apply muggle physics to this however, as both the glasses and Moody's eye may in fact be 'immured' to the effects of illusion-type magic, such as invisibility, rather then seeing infrared or whatnot. Thus the eye is tricked, but the glasses or Moody's magic eye are not tricked. Jazmyn From gregorylynn at attbi.com Tue Dec 31 01:23:13 2002 From: gregorylynn at attbi.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:23:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin is James References: Message-ID: <003201c2b06b$30e1f860$69756041@ne2.client2.attbi.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49004 I see this hasn't generated a lot of discussion in the last couple days. I would have thought it would have (but then, what do I know, this is my first post.) At first my reaction to the notion that Lupin is James is that it's ludicrous. But then I smacked myself...we've seen lots of people turn out to be someone they weren't supposed to be. I have a question though...Lupin turns wolf. If Lupin and James switched bodies wouldn't the new James turn wolf rather than the new Lupin? __________ Gregory Lynn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 02:10:39 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 02:10:39 -0000 Subject: Time Travel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49005 Laurasia wrote... a lot. :-) But to abbreviate what she wrote (I'll just jump to the conclusion): > What I've tried to demonstrate was that whilst there can never be > a difference in the overall outcome of the events (it would create > a paradox and negate all human existence), time only happened > once, you can't change the past, but you had a choice in it at the > time-whether you were on one side of the lake, or the other. I'll try to explain in my own words, the conclusion I came up to, that made me accept Theory 3...Oy...Here goes... The way the characters interact suggests that wizards believe in the cause-effect law. This means that the outcome of an event depends on the choices you make. Most importantly, that the cause will always precede the effect. (Which is the point of view I had that stopped me in accepting Theory 3, and all the examples I put as to why I didn't understand it). They truly believe that they are going back in time, and that if they kill their younger self, they're screwed. So in no way they can allow themselves to be seen, they make up laws to prevent wizards screwing up timelines, and so on. But the truth is that cause not necessarily precedes the effect. I'm sorry I'm not sure how to explain myself here. It's like when scientists believed that Earth was flat and that if you reached the border, you would fall off. Scientists wrote physic laws that helped them explain life based on this fact, but they got it wrong (of course this example would be fairly easy to detect because there where events that couldn't be explained, but it took hundreds of years for them to accept that the world is round, even though some scientists tried to prove that on the way). Wizards believe in a physic law about Time Travel that isn't the correct one. The correct one is that magic (or whatever you wish to call it), allows you to experience the consequences before the causes. But once the consequence happens, magic forces the curse of events in the timeline to remain constant so that there is no way to avoid the cause of that consequence. There is no way that you experience the consequence and that while you arrive to the point in time where the cause occurs; you can change events to avoid the cause from occurring. So the TT is the means to ensure that the cause will happen after the effect. This is the real way that physics in magic occur (concerning what wizards call time travel), but the way wizards understand it is that first comes the cause and THEN comes the effect, and that they travel in time. I think I rambled a bit, but I hope I made myself understood. By the way, it seems that Theory 3 doesn't allow "jumps" into the future. So, how does Prof. Trelawney do it? I mean, she pictured herself going to the Christmas dinner, who is she to defy fate?. Oh, yeah, right, she has the gift of being in contact with her third eye. It's magic at its finest!! Wish I could develope my third eye like that!! :-D Sharana... From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 03:35:47 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:35:47 -0000 Subject: Time Travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharana.geo " wrote: Sharana: > > bboy_mn has expressed here what many of you have said (I copied his > post because it's the one I found): > > The history of the world only occurs once. It's never redone. > > ...edited... > > One of the key aspects in Theory 3 is that H&H2 do not change what > happens, but are the reason to explain what happens to H&H1. I'll > put it in different words: > > The existence of H&H2 does not change the outcome. > > So: > > No matter what H&H2 do, it is what they are supposed to do. > > So, as bboy_mn put it: > > History can't be changed. > > So I conclude: > > Fate is written. -end this part- bboy_mm with a warning: Aahhhh.... but therein lies the rub. You can change time. You can alter history, but the consequences of doings so could truly be cataclysmic; cataclysmic as in end of the world, big band, hit the reset button, start all over, destruction of the universe cataclysmic. The time line is very strong... but it's brittle. When it's broken; it shatters. And this cascade of shattered time can cause an upheaval of massive time distortion that could taper off an become, relative to the universe, localized or it could continue to cascade upon itself until the universe is reduced to a cinder of dust, and time in the universe starts all over again. No, no, no.... breaking the line of time, altering resolved factual history is nasty nasty business. Even cataclysmic doesn't come close do describing the destructive potential. -end this part- > > OK. This raises a few questions: > > 1.- Why is it called a Time Turner? > > After all there is only one timeline. What's the point of turning > it? (Whatever that means!). bboy_mn answers 'Turner': It called a Time TURNER, but cause for very hour you want to move through time, you 'turn' the hourglass over. Hence, every turn alters you place in time, so it's 'Time Turner'. -end this part- > > 2.- What happened with: "It is our choices, not our abilities who > make us who we are" ? bboy_mn continues: It's not a matter of choices, it's a matter of consequences. You can choose to alter time, but can you.... can we.... can anyone... live with the consequences? It's not as simple as the alteration creating a new timeline. I hate to quote myself but this is what I said before... "It is because there can only be one and only one history of the world, that time travel is so dangerous. If your sudden appearance in the time line alters event that are already document proven history. Then the world of physics is thrown into chaos. The foundation of the whole universe becomes destablized. It's like a bomb going off in the fabric of time. Very dangerous business, this time travel. ..." -end this part- ...BME... ...Big Massive Edit.... Sharana continues: > > Isn't it safer and easier to destroy all TT's, instead of making > laws about them? > -end this part- > > ...edited... > > Sharana... bboy_mn responds: Isn't it safer and easier to destory all 'nuclear bombs' (*or insert nasty thing of your choice), instead of making laws about them? Not intending to offend anyone, but someone once said that if God didn't exist, we would have to invent him/her. Someone invented the Time Turner, and you can destory them all and supress all knowledge of them, but sooner or later, someone will invent them again. It's in man's/woman's nature to seek out mysteries and solve them. Little boys/girls dream of magical things like time travel, and sooner or later one of those little boys/girls will make that dream a reality. Better to instill good conscience in people than to try to supress knowledge. Of course, that's just my opinion. bboy_mn From dorigen at hotmail.com Tue Dec 31 04:20:45 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 04:20:45 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Invisibility Cloak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49007 >For those who get National Geographic, in this month's edition, there >is an article that discusses, among other things, "Active >Camouflage". This is a garment, looking remarkably like a cloak, that >is made from spider silk. There is some kind of technology added to >it so that it projects to any viewer the view that is behind it, >rendering the wearer pretty darn close to invisable, other than a >slight distortion. Thus, muggle technology directly simulates magic >in the real world! :) You know what this sounds like to me? Tolkien's Elven cloaks. However, although the complex physics explanations of Harry's cloak are very interesting, I think there's a simple answer: the cloak is only invisible when someone is wearing it (or hiding inside it). Harry unwraps it when he gets it for Christmas like any other article of clothing, and Snape sees it and picks it up off the ground in PoA. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf From dorigen at hotmail.com Tue Dec 31 04:28:50 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 04:28:50 +0000 Subject: Percy Weasley, weak link Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49008 I agree that Percy does not fit well into the Weasley family. I think his obsession with winning the approval of Crouch and therefore of the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Magic is caused by his need for approval which (as others have observed) he doesn't get from most of his family. I think this may cause several problems: 1) He will fall under the influence of Fudge (who I think is, if not already evil, well on his way to working for Voldemort & Co) because of Fudge's high status and conventional ways, despite his family's loyalties and his loyalty to Dumbledore. 2) This will result in security problems as the rest of the Weasleys become more involved with Dumbledore's work and may well end by endangering some member of Percy's family. This will be the chance for Percy to make up his mind without regard to rules, laws, reputations, or status and his choice at that point will determine his future and possibly the future of the Voldemort War. Choices are key, as Dumbledore keeps saying. Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf From skelkins at attbi.com Tue Dec 31 05:07:20 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 05:07:20 -0000 Subject: Crouch in 9 parts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49009 Some Crouch responses here. I *had* been trying to wait patiently for Eileen to finish up her responses, so that I could combine these, but since Eileen seems to have been eaten alive by the two-headed Exam and Holiday monster, I guess I'll just abandon that plan. The Catlady (whom I kept up all night earlier this month with my obsessive Crouching -- sorry, Catlady!) wrote: > Is it Livius Junius Brutus (in post 2 of 9) or Lucius Junius > Brutus (in post 3 of 9)? The dude's name was Lucius. Lucius Junius Brutus. That "Livius" must have just been a kind of leakage from "Livy." It's not even a proper Roman praenomen. Sorry 'bout that. I must have been fatigued while typing. > I know it's very impolite to make personal comments, but ... *you* > have shown no signs of being a dedicate servant of an Evil Overlord. And I know that it's very OT to respond to them, but ... thank you! ;-) Of course, no Evil Overlord (or his agents) ever approached me when I was 17 or so. If one had, I don't like to think about what might have happened. It was not precisely a high point in my life. 'Course, I do like to think that I might have managed to do a Snape. I rather suspect, though, that I would have been a lot more likely to grow up to be...Avery. Or maybe Karkaroff. Why else do you think that I sympathize so strongly with those sorts of characters? > I can NEVER remember what the four loves are, but isn't Junior's > devotion to Voldemort (which is dictating his actions once he > escapes his father's Imperius) some kind of love? Oh! Oh, this is so terrible! I sat down to list the four loves, and I couldn't remember the fourth one! I typed in 'agape,' which is divine love, the love of man for God, or of co-religionists for each other. I typed in 'eros,' which is sexual or romantic love. I typed in 'philos,' which is the love between friends. . . . And then I just sat there, utterly perplexed, because I *could* not for my *life* remember what the fourth one was. I had to look it up. The fourth love, of course, is 'storge.' You know, storge? *Familial* love? Like, filial devotion? I really am a sad case, aren't I. Storge. Right. Storge. But it's an interesting question, isn't it? Barty Jr's feelings for Voldemort strike me as quite obviously displaced filial devotion. So does that mean that he's motivated by storge? Does love, of a sort, drive his actions? Well, maybe it does. Maybe it does at that. I also do read his treatment of his father's body as a kind of deranged attempt to avenge his mother, which might also qualify as a twisted manifestation of _storge_. Certainly, I think that one of the saddest things about Crouch Jr's confession scene is the extent to which it shows him as very human. He comes across as schizoid, but not really as sociopathic. So perhaps he was motivated by a kind of love after all. This would be in keeping with his role as a double to his father, IMO. In both cases, they are motivated by their own understanding of love -- and in both cases, they are shooting rather far from the mark. > In my opinion, which has a very poor track record....JKR isn't > going to re-visit the Crouches, and therefore is not going to > confirm or deny what was said under Veritaserum, but I think she > intended that what was said under Snape's strongest Veritaserum to > be truth. I agree with you that JKR is extremely unlikely to revisit the Crouches, as sad as that makes me. So far in the canon, JKR has shown a tendency to treat her secondary villains as disposable commodities. My guess is that Crouch Jr. is just like Quirrell and Lockhart: one-volume characters. I'm not so sure about that veritaserum, though. I think that we are meant to read a good deal of subjectivity into a number of Crouch Jr's lines in that chapter -- most notably "he loved her as he had never loved me." Also, I'd say that the subjectivity of Junior's final statement is rather strongly highlit. He is not, in fact, going to be rewarded for his loyalty or honored above all other Death Eaters or anything of the sort. He is about to have the soul sucked right out of his body by a dementor, one of his master's "natural allies." With that statement, I'd say that the author is showcasing Crouch Jr's lack of objectivity and insight quite deliberately, and she's doing so for ironic and pathetic effect. We are meant, I think, to be reminded of the fate of the unfortunate Quirrell, and of Dumbledore's comment about how Voldemort discards those no longer of use to him. I think that the statement is also meant to draw the reader's attention to the running motif of misplaced loyalty that dogs the Crouches like a kind of family curse. Barty Jr's loyalty to Voldemort is misguided, just as his mother's faith in him was misguided, and just as Winky's and Percy's faith in his father was misguided. So on the whole, I don't feel that Barty Jr's confession is meant to be read as *objective* truth. There is, however, probably no way to prove this one way or the other. Bel wrote: > "Hallo! I'm not sure that I'm really ready for TBAY, but I > did want to ask a question. I'm Bel, by the way." Hi, Bel! And a *very* belated welcome to the list. (You seem to have settled in perfectly nicely by now all on your own, but I've been away, so...er...well, welcome anyway.) Feel free to jump into one of those TBAY threads any time, by the way, and please don't worry about the format. You absolutely don't have to use that fictive style if you don't feel like it. > "I was just wondering -- in light of everything you've said > about Crouch, Sr and Winky, isn't it also suggestive that > Barty, Jr. changes his father's body into a bone? Maybe you > have to know American slang for that to be obvious, but > changing his father's body into something that's a metaphor > for...well, you know...male anatomy...certainly suggests a > few things to me about the way he felt about his father and > his father's behavior. It certainly ties into the reasons > Elkins is postulating for Junior's disappointment, doesn't > it? Hah! Excellent (if slightly Bent) point! You know, I never even *considered* that? That's great. Is that just American slang, though? If so, then it's probably not what the author had in mind, but hey. Who cares? The author is *so* dead! ;-) > "I've always wondered, though, if Crouch, Sr. being turned into > a bone just before Voldemort needs 'the bone of the father' > doesn't tie together somehow... I think that it does tie together thematically and symbolically, definitely. It helps to establish the Crouch family drama as a kind of echo of the Riddle family drama, and Crouch Jr. as a literary double to Voldemort. I also see a strong linguistic connection between the "bones" of these doubled victims of parricide and the "skeletons in the family closet" which both Crouch Jr. and Voldemort represented before they each turned the tables on their fathers, so to speak, transforming their fathers into the buried hidden bones, while they themselves emerged into the light. (I wrote quite a bit about this back in May of this year, btw. If you're interested, the message number is #38398. It's really a post about Neville and Harry, but it's also got quite a bit of Crouch Jr. and Voldemort in it.) On the level of the *plot,* though, I don't really think that the two events are connected -- in other words, I don't think that Crouch Jr. was consciously attempting to emulate his master or to offer a kind of homage to him when he chose to transform his father into a bone. Crouch Jr. himself doesn't seem to have been appraised of the details of the ritual that Voldemort was planning on using to achieve his reincorporation. He questions Harry quite intently about these details, and his "hiss" when Harry tells him that Voldemort took his blood indicates surprise to me -- if not outright alarm. (It has been suggested on the list in the past that Crouch Jr's hiss might be the flip side of Dumbledore's infamous gleam, a notion which I find completely convincing. It seems to me that "Oops, Phoenix tears, I forget!" Voldemort probably made a rather serious error when he chose to confide the full details of his plan to the one of his two servants who was an utterly *mediocre* student back in his schooldays, rather than to the one who took the 12 OWLS.) So while I do think that the congruence of "bones of fathers" is very significant on the thematic and the symbolic level, I don't myself believe that it has any particular plot significance. Others, however, as the Catlady mentioned, believe that JKR might have been setting up another "rebirthing ritual" for Crouch Jr. The Catlady wrote, about this theory: > Of course, some people are convinced that Junior will re-appear, > getting his soul back by using some variant of Voldemort's spell > for getting his body back because that spell uses "bone of the > father" and JKR so carefully made sure that bone of Senior is > available -- a plot device reason for transfiguring him into a bone > and hiding it that has *nothing* to do with wizarding opinion of > what is to be done with dead bodies ... Yeah, I've seen that theory. I've never been able to subscribe to it myself, though. For one thing, like I said before, I really don't think that JKR is planning to do anything else with Crouch Jr. For another, Crouch Jr's problem isn't that he's missing a *body.* His *body* isn't his problem. It's his *soul* that's missing, and I see no reason to believe that the bones of ones father would be of the slightest bit of use in recovering that. And finally, I don't believe for a minute that poor old Crouch Sr's body is still lying around in Hagrid's pumpkin patch for any old person to come by and disinter (or for Fang to dig up and chew on, for that matter). Surely once Dumbledore learned what had become of it, he would have seen to it that it received a decent burial, don't you think? I suspect that the bone that was Crouch Sr. was retrieved and then given some form of proper disposal even before the Leaving Feast. Then, there's also the fact that I can't believe for a moment that JKR would offer a "cure" for the Dementor's Kiss in such a manner. The Kiss has been quite firmly established as permanent, irrevocable. "There's no chance at all of recovery," Lupin says in Ch. 12 of PoA. The Kiss is scary. It's horrific. It's part of what makes the idea of the dementors joining forces with Voldemort so terrifying. It is the Potterverse's Fate Worse Than Death, and it is highly dramatically effective as such. JKR would have to be *mad* to throw all that away just to bring back a secondary character, or to provide her villains with a subplot that would by necessity have to be happening mainly off-screen. She's far too canny an author ever to do such a thing, IMO. If JKR did ever produce a cure for the Dementor's Kiss (which I doubt she ever will), then I'd say that it would have to be a major plotline for *Harry,* and the victim that it would be used to save would have to be a *beloved* character, someone that both Harry and the reader genuinely care about. Someone like Sirius Black, for example. Or (heaven forbid!) Ron. I don't believe that she'd ever do it just to bring back a secondary character like Barty Jr who, as much as I may personally have adored him, really has already played out his dramatic purpose in the story. > But while I was reading this part of your discourse, I was heard > to clearly say: "Oh, shit" because I thought you were about to > prove that Mrs. Crouch had NOT gone to her horrible death of her > own will, but rather her husband had bullied her into it with > remarks like "It's not such a big sacrifice for you; you're already > dying" and "What kind of mother could let her child suffer like > that?" Wow, you must really think that I hate Crouch Sr, eh? Now where on earth could you have received that notion, I wonder. ;-D Nah. Believe it or not, I really wasn't trashing poor Mr. Crouch's character just out of spite. (Well...not *just* out of spite.) I was just trying to explain how I read him, that's all. Althooooogh... No. No, I still can't make myself believe it. I think that what little we see of Mrs. Crouch in the Pensieve scene is perfectly consistent with someone who would have wanted to save her son's life without having to be bullied into it. << 'Just so you know, boy, I would have happily left you to rot in Azkaban, if only your sainted mother hadn't forced my hand with that blasted dying request of hers.' >> > I don't think that's so implausible, at least maybe phrased > differently. No, and neither did Eileen. To tell you the truth, even *I* wasn't so sure that it was all that implausible, really, which was part of why I wrote Eileen responding ambiguously there, rather than forcing her to mouth yet another one of those godawful Socratic Dialogue Stooge lines ("Why, that is true, Elkine!" "It is indubitably so, Elkins!") that I kept smacking her with all throughout the novenna. Yeah, I guess that I can imagine Crouch Sr. telling his son something of that sort in a moment of stress or exasperation -- and I can certainly imagine him doing so in a fit of temper. So I suppose that it is possible that Crouch Jr. was going by what his father had told him. I still don't believe the story, though. After all, the things that we say while stressed or exasperated or angry are often not entirely true (Crouch Sr., after all, is the same man who bellows "you are not my son!" when he's in a temper), and as I said in Part Six, Crouch strikes me as having been far too deeply invested in keeping his son alive for me to believe that he didn't really want to save him in the first place, even apart from any dying request his wife may or may not have made. > My year 2000 searches on mythology websites all found that an > "alastor" is a spirit of vengeance, a male nemesis. Oh, Catlady! I didn't know that! *Thank* you! > A horrible thought in connection with the recent discussion that > Dumbledore has persuaded Snape that Snape will win his way back > into Voldemort's trust by bringing him Dumblehead's head on a > platter (CHOP: Cranium of Headmaster On a Platter). Hee! I was sooooo sad to miss my opportunity to play on that thread while it was active, but I really loved CHOP. Now I'm hoping that it's true. Although I'm also hoping that the rather gruesome twist you suggest here (Severus proving his loyalty to Voldemort by handing over Dumbledore alive to suffer unspeakable torments) is not, because even I am not quite twisted enough to have any stomach for the thought. Fortunately, I really don't really think that JKR is planning to get *that* dark with the series! << I mean, you have to figure, don't you, that the elves probably fill the Nanny role in those households? >> > I don't figure anything of the kind, primarily because there is > nothing of the kind in the tradition of house elves, brownies, > dobbies, all those names: they do the *housework*, sometimes even > cooking, sometime shoe-making, during the night, *unseen* by the > humans of the household. And the House Elves of Hogwarts do their > work sufficiently unseen by the humans there that Hermione would > never have learned their were House Elves at Hogwarts if Hearly > Headless Nick hadn't *told* her. Yes, that's true, but the house elves of folklore also don't leave their houses, or like having their work acknowledged in any way, and they *absolutely* do not like being thanked. In many folk stories, if you ever spot a dobbie at its labors, it will leave the house instantly, or even turn against you, and in British folklore, you're absolutely *never* supposed to thank the fae. JKR's house elves, OTOH, don't really mind being seen -- their invisibility is the invisibility of a competent Edwardian servant, not of a folkloric brownie. The Hogwarts elves are perfectly fine with having visitors to the kitchen, and far from being insulted when Ron compliments them on their service, they positively *beam* with pleasure. They also leave their houses to serve as personal servants, which their folkloric equivalents never do. Dobby accompanies Lucius Malfoy to Hogwarts at the end of CoS, and nobody seems at all surprised to see that Crouch chose to take his house elf with him to the QWC in GoF. All of that leads me to read the house elves as a far more generalized slave or servant class than the dobbies/brownies of folklore. When Bertha Jorkins comes calling at the Crouch residence while the master is away, Winky seems to have taken on the role of butler-cum-parlor-maid before returning to her kitchens. They seem to me to fill quite a wide range of domestic functions. I do take your point about size, though. The house elves would be rather too small to perform the Nanny role entirely. > Oh, Merlin's ba-beard! Those Crouches are in a social class where > sexual fidelity in marriage *doesn't matter*, as long as the wife > doesn't bring in any wrong-fathered offspring or be caught with a > low-class lover! If Mrs Crouch whined and threw things just because > her husband had affairs, she was even more manipulative and > coercive and all that than I had thought when she was depicted > coercing him into rescuing Junior. Yes, but things often look rather different to the children of those families, particularly to those in the throes of an angry and idealistic adolescence. Mrs. Crouch doesn't need to have been kicking up a fuss for Barty Jr. to have taken it amiss. And besides, bedding the house elves could be viewed *very* differently than taking human mistresses would be. But. That would bring us to Barty Jr. as Quentin Compson, which while it might not be quite as perverse as Eileen's Barty-as-Faramir, is nonetheless pretty stunningly anti-canonical. If also very amusing. ("Why do you hate the wizarding world?" "I don't I don't hate the wizarding world I don't I don't I don't.") I wrote, of one half of what I perceive as a strongly and rather disturbingly divided maternal role in the books: > The ones who get down in the trenches of the actual day-to-day > dirty work of mothering, whose sacrifices entail *living* for their > children, rather than just dying for them. *That* role...is filled > by the house elves. Who are grotesque and faintly ludicrous. The Catlady wrote: > Whose role was being filled by JKR herself at the time she wrote > Book 1 and envisioned the whole plot of the septology. Indeed. Which is part of what makes the divided maternal role so interesting, IMO. If JKR had been a wealthy or a childless woman while writing the books, or if she were a man, then I doubt that I would find it nearly so curious. > How can it possibly be misogyny for a woman to refuse to do > loathsome and unpleasant slave labor, which no one really wants to > do...and which is traditionally assigned to women only because > women have traditionally been kept in the position of slaves? It's not. It's only misogyny once one allows ones distaste for the labour itself to extend to a distaste for the people who traditionally get stuck doing it -- ie, women. It is one of those sad facts of life, though, that *someone* always has to do the sh*t work. Naturally, it shouldn't always have to be the women. Then, in my household, it's *never* the women -- 'cause the woman is *me,* and I won't touch the stuff. I make the menfolk do it all. I'd love to claim that this is just a case of redressing the balance, or something of that sort, but it's not, you know. It's really not. It's actually just because I'm neurotic, spoiled, manipulative, and *profoundly* selfish. Then, I did mention that I felt a rather strong (and uncomfortable) sense of reader identification with Crouch Jr, didn't I? Elkins (who doesn't agree that a woman who believes in doing her own domestic labor, rather than hiring others to do it for her, is necessarily misogynist at all, btw, but who guesses that maybe if she's going to tackle that issue, she should probably do it over on OTC) From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Dec 31 05:41:49 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:41:49 -0500 Subject: FILK: You're the Top Message-ID: <001601c2b08f$5064f240$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 49010 This is my first-ever filk, something light for the holiday season. The source material is "You're the Top" by Cole Porter, from the musical Anything Goes. It takes place during "The Unexpected Task" chapter from GoF. It is not properly sung out loud, but may be heard faintly by listening to Ron's deepest subconscious. YOU'RE THE TOP Mere thoughts romantic leave me so frantic That always I find it best Instead of getting them off my chest To let them rest unaddressed. Were I admittin' that I'm so smitten Well, then I could tell you how great you are . . . You're the top You're a day in Hogsmeade You're the top You're a Fizzing Whizbee You're a tangerine flavored bean from Bertie Botts You're a sugar quill You're my brother Bill You're wizard's chess! You're the top You're the Chudley Cannons You're a vault full of golden galleons I'm a worthless cheque, a total wreck, a flop But if, Hermione, I'm the bottom, you're the top! You're the top You're a bouncing ferret You're the great pyramids of Egypt You're a shimmery silver Invisibility Cloak You're a Weasley jumper, You're a Cockroach Cluster, You're Zonko's jokes! You're a lark You're my owl Pigwidgeon You're a mark of three hundred seven I'm a house of cards that's fated soon to drop, But if, Hermione, I'm the bottom, you're the top! You're the top You're the best of Aurors You're a pair of Omnioculars You're the nimble zoom of the broom of Viktor Krum, You're an eclair platter You're a flying Anglia You're Drooble's gum! You're romance You're a Sneakoscope You're a dance, dressed in brand new dress robes, I'm a lazy lout who's just about to stop, But if, Hermione, I'm the bottom, you're the top! Debbie with admiration for the frequent filkers on this list, having discovered just how hard it is to write one [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 03:42:07 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:42:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin is James Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49011 Gregory Lynn wrote: > I see this hasn't generated a lot of discussion in the last couple > days. I would have thought it would have (but then, what do I > know, this is my first post.) It's true, maybe because we focused intensely on the Time Travel stuff, and maybe no one else has come up with canon that negates the posibility. I believe we have covered all the canon there is about it. Gregory Lynn wrote: > At first my reaction to the notion that Lupin is James is that > it's ludicrous. But then I smacked myself...we've seen lots of > people turn out to be someone they weren't supposed to be. I think that is one of the beauties of it :-) Gregory Lynn wrote: > I have a question though...Lupin turns wolf. If Lupin and James > switched bodies wouldn't the new James turn wolf rather than the > new Lupin? No. Remember Lupin wasn't born a werewolf, he was bitten by one when he was a kid. The werewolf condition is a biological one, not a spiritual (personality or soul-related) one. Like women's PMS. Can't avoid it, its there and it triggers when the moon comes up. So turning into a werewolf is a condition that will remain in Lupin's body. Even if James lives in Lupin's body, he cannot prevent the body from transforming into a werewolf better than Lupin could. Cheers... Sharana From gregorylynn at attbi.com Tue Dec 31 05:04:00 2002 From: gregorylynn at attbi.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:04:00 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore as Voldemort Message-ID: <005801c2b08a$0929b960$69756041@ne2.client2.attbi.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49012 First, forgive me if this has been argued to death. I read a bunch of the archived stuff and didn't see it so here goes. Do you think it's possible that Dumbledore might be some sort of reformed Lord Voldemort? There are a number of reasons why this is a ludicrous thought, from the fact that they live at the same time to the fact that they're completely different and so forth. Let me attempt to address them. In a nutshell, the theory is that Voldemort does his thing zaps Harry, goes poof, comes back, and somewhere along the lines of the end of the last book he is transformed either by a mere personality change or some serious magic or something we don't yet know. What he becomes is the anti-Voldemort, Dumbledore. Dumbledore then goes back in time to try to counter the evil he did as Voldemort. I don't think there are a lot of people who will disagree when I say there is a strong theme of transformation (somewhat broadly defined) in these books. By broadly defined I mean both actual transformation (e.g. Sirius the man turns into a dog) but apparent transformations based on a new perspective on the part of someone (e.g. Sirius Black is "transformed" from evil murdering swine to loving godfather). There are innumerable examples of both kinds of transformations. Harry himself is transformed from a nobody forced to live in the cupboard underneath the stairs into a world famous boy wizard. Sirius Black transforms. Lupin transforms from professor to werewolf to dad's old friend. Snape transforms from evil would be murdering hatemonger to just a hatemonger. And all the animagi...tons of 'em. So there's some serious transformation action going on. I'd even suggest that it is the most prominent theme in the book. Is it so absurd to think that it might apply to some of the most central characters? Obviously for this to happen, Voldemort/Dumbledore would have to live an absurdly long time since Dumbledore is already ancient. But we know that Voldemort has done just about everything he possibly could to prevent his own death. Meanwhile Dumbledore looks upon death as just the next great adventure. Couldn't Dumbledore have this feeling that once he makes right all the wrongs he made, he'll be able to die with a clean conscience. Also obviously, there needs to be some messing with time. We've seen several relevant things with the Time Turner. First, that time travel is possible. Second, that Dumbledore knows about it's powers and limitations. Third, that Dumbledore is willing to violate the rules of time travel for the greater good. And finally, doesn't it just seem like Dumbledore has seen it all before? He very clearly seems to be trying to bring Harry into the fight with Voldemort on a somewhat limited scale. He puts the Mirror out so Harry will know how to use it, gives Harry the invisibility cloak et cetera and so forth. Also, note that Dumbledore arrived back at Hogwarts before Hermione and Ron could even get to the owlery to send him a note. Perhaps he knew that Quirrell wouldn't try anything with him there, so left for a bit and came right back. Also, he seems amused by a lot of things that one wouldn't think would be amusing. The whole time loop thing for instance...he smiled in what should have been a somewhat serious time as if he'd seen it all before and knew how it was going to turn out. I'm not altogether convinced Dumbledore is Voldemort, but I can't shake the feeling it might be true. Maybe. Thoughts anyone? ___________ Gregory Lynn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 12:54:17 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:54:17 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloaks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49014 Steve:"Others have given theories about how the cloak may absorb or bend light to prevent you from seeing it. A thought along those lines is, if it works by magic rather than physics, does the cloak enchant the wearer and make him invisible, or does the cloak enchant the viewer and make him unable to see?" Jim, coming firmly down on the side of magic: Magic has laws just the same as physics does. There's the Law of Similarity, the Law of Contagion, the Reverse Spell Effect, and so on. (Try reading Randall Garrett's Lord Darcy books for a great take on scientific magic.) Hogwarts seems to approach magic as a science at least some of the time. There's tough gut courses (McGonagall's) and "easy A" courses (Trelawney's). Sound familiar? If you think of magic coming from or harnessed by the mind, then a lot of things make sense. Children performing spontaneous magic when angry or scared; wands as focusing tools; wizards with more talent and power than others. Potions are harder to explain. If you and I made a potion with the same ingredients in the same way as Snape would, would it work? I'm guessing no, because it would be missing the ingredient you and I can't inject, the magic. (Don't ask me to defend that, 'cause I can't.) The problem here is that JKR hasn't shared the details of magic in her world with us, as some other authors have. (See Garrett). I hope that?s her next schoolbook publication. Jim Ferer, trying to conjure up a dinner and failing From Lynx412 at aol.com Tue Dec 31 13:36:49 2002 From: Lynx412 at aol.com (Lynx412 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:36:49 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as Voldemort Message-ID: <19c.e7e01b9.2b42f771@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49015 Interesting. Way to much to quote from but I had been thinking something similar. Not Voldemort, though. Slytherin. Good old Salazar, who vanished from the school long ago. An especially interesting theory if Harry is a descendent of Slytherin. Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jonmayes at hotmail.com Tue Dec 31 14:21:18 2002 From: jonmayes at hotmail.com (jcminjapan ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:21:18 -0000 Subject: Percy Weasley, weak link In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > I agree that Percy does not fit well into the Weasley family. I >think his obsession with winning the approval of Crouch and >therefore of the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Magic is caused by >his need for approval which (as others have observed) he doesn't get >from most of his family. Just a thought, but basically I think that with Percy being the weak link (as I think most recognize) I am myself debating on who will die in the next book. Personally my choices are Hagrid or Mr. Weasely. Both seem to fit into JKR`s description. For this post I will stick with why I think it will be Mr. Weasely. A few facts: 1) Voldemort and Co. are back in action. 2) Seems that when alot of bad stuff starts to happen Dumbledore is called or taken away by the Ministry of Magic. 3) Percy seems to care about advancement and tends to rebel against the ways of the Weasely family. 4) Mr. Weasly is completely again Voldemort and Co. Obviously if Mr. Malfoy has any say in it, Mr. Weasley will be one of the first to go. Now, I have this theory that Percy will have to take sides and I just do not see him having the will power to go against the MoM. I think he may side with the bad side of the MoM as they will definately know how to CONTROL him. His weaknesses are very evident, they will play on it and give him higher positions. I think that he will think he is doing the right thing, but..... I just have this feeling that he will actually be somewhat if not directly responsible for his fathers death. But, I have a feeling that in the end after alot of soul searching and twists of fate.... Percy will switch sides secretly and end up on the good side. Just my two knuts JCMinJapan - Jon Mayes From danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 14:39:29 2002 From: danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com (Danny Tenenbaum) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:39:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021231143929.35890.qmail@web10302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49017 Ok, after reading all of these Time Travel posts I created my own little graphic which I hope is clear and portrays what most people have been referring to theory 3. Here it is: http://users.starpower.net/btenen/tt.gif Sorry but I don't know how to put HTML into emails. I guess my only question would be: While Dumbledore, Harry, and Hermione are reuniting outside the Health Room, Dumbledore doesn't allow them in until he is sure that the other H&H timeturn out. But wouldn't the arrival of Harry and Hermione back to the health room door indicate that the other 2 had Time Turned by then? Or is it because there were still 5-10 seconds left before the 3 hours were up? I think the reason people become confused with this section of the book is because of the number of pages it takes for Rowling to follow H&H the 2nd time through and how to most characters, Harry and Hermione were gone for a mere instant while for Harry and Hermione it was a 27 hour day for them. Whew! -Danny __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From murray at via.ecp.fr Tue Dec 31 13:18:17 2002 From: murray at via.ecp.fr (Carlo Calabro) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:18:17 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as Voldemort In-Reply-To: <005801c2b08a$0929b960$69756041@ne2.client2.attbi.com> References: <005801c2b08a$0929b960$69756041@ne2.client2.attbi.com> Message-ID: <20021231131817.GB12618@roy.via.ecp.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 49018 On Tue, Dec 31, 2002, Gregory Lynn wrote: > Do you think it's possible that Dumbledore might be some sort of reformed Lord Voldemort? Just one question: why? I mean, the James!Remus theory has been introduced as *necessary* to solve a time loop issue. It is a bit weird, but one can see it could make sense. But, by Ockham's razor, why on magic or muggle earth would we need to think Dd as a LV double? -- Carlo From Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com Tue Dec 31 16:26:54 2002 From: Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com (blind_nil_date ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:26:54 -0000 Subject: 2 nagging questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49019 Potter Hermione forever: > Who will believe Harry except D'dore & Company? He has no proof of > that. Minister of Magic Fudge made sure of that. > > I think Fudge is in league with Voldemort. That is why he had > Crouch Jr. disposed of. So that he would not be able to spill the beans > on Voldemort & his Death Eaters. Remember the strange & almost happy gleam in > Fudge's eye when Harry told him Voldemort had returned at the end of GoF in the > chapter 'Parting of the Ways'? > I believe Dumbledore had it right. Fudge's gleam, I think, was that of a man who felt his office in jeapordy. I don't think Fudge bright enough to ally himself with Voldemort, not intentionally. He may unwittingly do so. "blind_nil_date" From Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com Tue Dec 31 16:30:27 2002 From: Bratschen-Spieler at carolina.rr.com (blind_nil_date ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:30:27 -0000 Subject: 2 nagging questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49020 crazytortilla: > Hmm, good questions. > > 1- I think in COS (don't have books on me) that Dumbledore says that > not many people knew Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, therefore would > not know his heritage. Lucius knew since he gave Ginny the diary, > but the other DE's found out at the graveyard in GOF. By then it > didn't matter since he was just plain evil anyway. They all had the > same hatred, and I think that kind of sheer evil makes strange > allies. > > 2-Uhmm, Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle just seem to be nuisances so far. > I don't think they have the intelligence to do anything more or try > to undermine anyone. Malfoy and co will probably just get more > annoying with future books --trying to knock Harry off his broom at > Quidditch matches, following the trio around..etc. > > Well, that is just what I think, anwyay. Part one I can see from where you are coming. Part 2? I think Draco Malfoy has shown too much smugness and awareness to not contribute in a real way to acts more terrible than simple annoyances. Look at the way he was acting in the woods after the Quidditch match in GoF. He seemed highly aware of who and what was going on and relishing the moment. "blind_nil_date" From klingerji at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 15:02:18 2002 From: klingerji at yahoo.com (klingerji ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:02:18 -0000 Subject: Death In OotP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49021 Has anyone considered that Dumbledore will be the next one to die? In the end of GoF there was a lot of discussion about how tired he looked and how old he appeared. He would obviously be Volermort's biggest threat and most likely to be his first priority. Also, it is my theory (although totally unsubstantiated) that JKR may has withheld the release of the next book knowing that Richard Harris had been sick and antcipating his death. Any opinions? "klingerji" From dorigen at hotmail.com Tue Dec 31 17:16:38 2002 From: dorigen at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:16:38 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy Weasley, weak link Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49022 I have also speculated on the possible deaths in the next book, and agree that Hagrid and Mr. Weasley are possibilities (also Neville and Percy). Fond though I am of Mr. Weasley, I would miss Hagrid the most. And if he does die, I bet it will be in the process of spying for Dumbledore "in plain sight," as he's been doing IMO since the first book. There's also the possibility that Dumbledore will die, but I don't think it would make much difference. We already have several ghosts, including one teacher, at Hogwarts; there's certainly room for another. Especially one who a) knows a lot about "rising from the ashes" and b) has stated that he will never be gone from Hogwarts as long as someone there is loyal to him ... Janet Anderson * * * * * * * * * * * * * An ordinary person says, "You have a face that would stop a clock." A diplomat says, "When I look at you, time stands still." _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 16:38:58 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:38:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49023 Gregory Lynn wrote: > Do you think it's possible that Dumbledore might be some sort of > reformed Lord Voldemort? > > In a nutshell, the theory is that Voldemort does his thing zaps > Harry, goes poof, comes back, and somewhere along the lines of the > end of the last book he is transformed either by a mere > personality change or some serious magic or something we don't yet > know. What he becomes is the anti-Voldemort, Dumbledore. > Dumbledore then goes back in time to try to counter the evil he > did as Voldemort. > > I don't think there are a lot of people who will disagree when I > say there is a strong theme of transformation (somewhat broadly > defined) in these books. By broadly defined I mean both actual > transformation (e.g. Sirius the man turns into a dog) but apparent > transformations based on a new perspective on the part of someone > (e.g. Sirius Black is "transformed" from evil murdering swine to > loving godfather). > > Obviously for this to happen, Voldemort/Dumbledore would have to > live an absurdly long time since Dumbledore is already ancient. > But we know that Voldemort has done just about everything he > possibly could to prevent his own death. Meanwhile Dumbledore > looks upon death as just the next great adventure. Couldn't > Dumbledore have this feeling that once he makes right all the > wrongs he made, he'll be able to die with a clean conscience. > > Also obviously, there needs to be some messing with time. We've > seen several relevant things with the Time Turner. First, that > time travel is possible. Second, that Dumbledore knows about it's > powers and limitations. Third, that Dumbledore is willing to > violate the rules of time travel for the greater good. > > And finally, doesn't it just seem like Dumbledore has seen it all > before? > > I'm not altogether convinced Dumbledore is Voldemort, but I can't > shake the feeling it might be true. Maybe. > > Thoughts anyone? That is a very loose way of defining "transformation"! ;-) What you call "apparent transformation" is really "to get to know someone better". Any way, as anything is possible, let's give it a thought. I think it is unlikely that Dumbledore is a reformed Voldemort. First of all, I can't imagine what can happen that can make an all- evil wizard turn into an all-good one. The only example I can think of is Star Wars: Anakin/Darth Vader. Anakin turned to the dark side to become Darth Vader who was really bad. Later Luke managed to turn him back to being Anakin. But Anakin was never all-good. He was only human with flaws and insecurities. So Darth Vader (really bad) turned back into Anakin (human, not all-good). You seem to suggest that Dumbledore wishes to undo the bad things Voldemort did going back in time. First there is the age issue: Remember Dumbledore was Voldemort's transfiguration teacher 1.- Harry was born in 1980. Harry's first year in Hogwarts is in 1991 (check the Lexicon). That would make Harry's 7th year in 1998. 2.- Hagrid and Voldemort studied together which would make them about the same age. JKR says that (in 1991) Hagrid is about 70 years old and Dumbledore 150 years old. So let's say Voldemort is 70 years old. That would make his birth date in 1921. By the 7th book Voldemort would be 77 years old. At age 77 he transforms into Dumbledore and goes back in time. How much back? Lets see... In SS/PS (US), Ch. 6: The Journey from Platform Nine and Three Quarters (Page 102-103): > Albus Dumbledore. Currently Headmaster of Hogwarts. > Considered by many the greatest wizard of modern times, Dumbledore > is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard > Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of > dragon blood, and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas > Flamel. So Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald about the time Voldemort entered Hogwarts (Hagrid was expelled in his 3rd year). Let's assume that Dumbledore "jumped" back in time to 1945, just in time to defeat Grindelwald. That would make our 1991 Dumbledore would be: 77 + (1991-1945) = 77 + 46 = 123 years old. So for Dumbledore to be 150 years old, he should have "born" (150 - 123) = 27 years earlier: in 1917. Check it out: Voldemort born in 1921. In 1998 he is 77. Goes back in time. For Dumbledore to be 150 in 1991, his "date birth" must be in 1917. So he has aged (1991 - 1917) 74 more years. 77 + 74 = 151 (error factor of 1 from 150, doesn't matter). But in PoA, in the Shrieking Shack scene, when Lupin and Sirius are explaining to the kids that they are Animagus, Hermione says that it isn't possible because she looked up in the MoM Animagi registers of this century to look up McGonagall, she knows Lupin isn't registered and she doesn't mention Dumbledore in it. If he was born in 1917 (or even 5 years earlier or later, due to error in calculations) and he was a transfiguration teacher, he should appear on the list. To be a teacher he must register. Even if there is a few years of error in my calculations (we are assuming that Voldemort is "about" 70 years old in 1991). There is still a big enough gap, for Dumbledore's "birth" to be registered after 1900, making it this century. Of course I am assuming that Dumbledore continues aging from what ever point in the past to 1991, which I think is a reasonable assumption. Then you have the issue of Dumbledore faking his birth. Wizard new borns are automatically registered (remember McGonagall looks in a list to see who will be every year new Hogwarts' students). But Dumbledore couldn't be registered. No matter to what year in the past he jumps to, he already is 77 years old. Someone, somewhere, would figure that out. Let's say he manages to fake a birth record. In 1945 he is a 77 year old wizard, who should be 27 years old. It's kind of obvious that his appearance doesn't match his age, even though wizards age slower than muggles. If Dumbledore would have jumped further back than 1945, let's say 1920, then the difference in his age would be even more obvious.. A 3 year-old in a body of a 77 year old. Then he has to build up friendships and other wizard's trust over the years, including Nicolas Flamel. It would be difficult to do it without arousing suspicions about his age. I know it sounds a bit confusing and it isn't conclusive, but I believe it is important. But let's go to canon to talk about Dumbledore and Voldemort. I remember this specific scene from Chamber of Secrets, when Tom Riddle (through the diary) is tricking Harry to believe that Hagrid opened the Chamber of Secrets 50 years ago. CoS (US, paperback): Ch.13: The Very Secret Diary (page 245): > ...They (Tom and Harry) didn't see another person until they > reached the entrance hall, when a tall wizard with long, sweeping > auburn hair and a beard called to Riddle from the marble staircase. > > "What are you doing, wandering around this late, Tom? > > Harry gaped at the wizard. He was none other than a fifty-year- > younger Dumbledore. > > "I had to see the headmaster, sir," said Riddle. > > "Well, hurry off to bed," said Dumbledore, giving Riddle exactly > the kind of penetrating stare Harry knew so well. "Best not to > roam the corridors these days. Not since..." > > He sighed heavily, bade Riddle good night, and strode off... I would believe that if Dumbledore wanted to do the right thing, he would at least try to put some sense in Tom Riddle before he becomes Voldemort. It's easier to prevent than to cure. If Dumbledore were Transformed!Voldemort, he would know what Riddle was about to do. I would think he would say or do something more than just tell Riddle to go to bed. Riddle's hair was jet black (like Harry's hair) and Dumbledore's hair was auburn, before it went grey. You would think that after all that Voldemort's been through, it's a miracle he even has hair. ;-) Another scene: Inside the chamber, Tom is telling Harry that Dumbledore suspected it him as the one who opened the Chamber. CoS: Ch 17: The Heir of Slytherin. Page 312 > "I bet Dumbledore saw right through you," said Harry, his teeth > gritted. > > "Well he certainly kept an annoyingly close watch on me after > Hagrid was expelled, " said Riddle carelessly. Why would Dumbledore do this if he already knew Riddle was guilty? Why wouldn't he do something more effective to stop Riddle? If Dumbledore didn't wish to interfere in Riddle-becoming-bad-guy- Voldemort development then I see no point for him to go back in time. I wouldn't think that he wanted others to do in such a complicated and sacrificed way what he could have prevented earlier on. (Remember Voldemort killed a LOT of people). Dumbledore knows it's dangerous to meddle with the past, do you think he would try to do it? Another thought: During Voldemort's Reign of Terror, why would Dumbledore need spies? He new what Voldemort was doing. He had a Pensieve to put his memories in, in case he forgot. Maybe there is more canon that could be discussed, I think this is enough (for now, at least) to make you think about the "Dumbledore is Voldemort" idea. Gregory Lynn wrote: > And finally, doesn't it just seem like Dumbledore has seen it all > before? YES!! You could get that impression but I believe that in many occasions, we get the wrong impression. We would have to check all the books one case at a time, but I have a few cases in mind right now. In PoA, when Harry and Hermione are using the TimeTurner to rescue Buckbeak, Dumbledore seemed to know that Harry was having trouble with BB and he stalls Macnair to give Harry enough time to disappear into the woods, before Macnair comes out Hagrid's house. He also makes Macnair look for BB in the sky, away from where Harry, Hermione and BB are hidden. I believe Dumbledore's spectacles are like Moody's magic eye. Through the spectacles, Dumbledore can see past solid walls, which is why he also knew Harry was trying to get in Dumbledore's office to talk to him when Snape was stalling him. Like Moody's Eye, the spectacles also let Dumbledore see through Invisibility cloaks. It seems that Dumbledore is well informed about most of what happens inside Hogwarts. It is highly possible that all (or most) of the portrait characters (Fat Lady, Sir Cadogan, Violet, etc) act as spies for him. Remember there are pictures hanging all over the castle and that these characters can move freely between them. Consider the house-elves, they are all over the castle cleaning, cooking, and whatever else. You usually don't notice them, but they pick up a lot of information: Moody summoned Dobby so he could hear Moody and McGonagall's conversation about gillyweed. The house-elves are loyal to their master (Dumbledore) so he probably gathers a lot of info from them too. Then, many people have speculated that the ghosts and Peeves also tell Dumbledore things. Why do you think Peeves is around? Peeves causes a lot of trouble. If Lupin could stick chewing gum up Peeves's nose, what makes you think Dumbledore isn't capable of eradicating Peeves from Hogwarts? Peeves fears the Bloody Baron, so Peeves isn't invincible. But Peeves also respects Dumbledore and the teachers in general. He probably provides information to Dumbledore, maybe even not realizing it. Dumbledore also has useful people outside Hogwarts, that acted as spies for him during Voldemort's reign of terror. Remember the old crowd. Dumbledore is a good man who treats everyone with the same respect and as equals, regardless of their money, if they are pure blood or not, if they are muggles, wizards, house-elves, goblins, gnomes, half giants, etc. He earns other people's respect and trust, and they are willing to help him. What do you think? A last minute note: Carlo wrote: >I mean, the James!Remus theory has been introduced as *necessary* to >solve a time loop issue. It is a bit weird, but one can see it could >make sense. Not exactly. Although the Patronus issue was what originated the idea, the James!Remos theory serves to explain certain characters reactions in the book, certain unexplained things and brings up the posibility of an interesting plot for the future books. Enough! HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE!!! Sharana... From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 17:23:10 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:23:10 -0000 Subject: Death In OotP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49024 klingerji wrote: > Has anyone considered that Dumbledore will be the next one to die? > In the end of GoF there was a lot of discussion about how tired he > looked and how old he appeared. > He would obviously be Volermort's biggest threat and most likely > to be his first priority. I have always thought that it is posible that Dumbledore dies (maybe not in book 5, but at some point). It seems that when JKR repeats something, she is making it clear that what ever she is repeating, is a very important clue. Both Hermione and Hagrid have said at some point, that as long as Dumbledore lives, Hogwarts is safe (or Harry is safe). "As long as Dumbledore lives..." is enough to make me think: "No, no, no, he's gonna die. Arghhh". I hate the idea but it's possible. There are also many references to vampires, and so far we don't know who it is (I am one who believes Snape is a good choice). Many references to poisons (seems Harry is inmune to them, or at least has a protection to slow them down). klingerji wrote: > Also, it is my theory (although totally unsubstantiated) that JKR > may has withheld the release of the next book knowing that Richard > Harris had been sick and antcipating his death. > Any opinions? No. It would be too cruel to wait for Harris to die, you have to be cold-hearted to do that... Anyway PoA filming will start in February 2003. Book 5 is long away to become a movie and has nothing to do with any of the actor's health. I understand she was rushed by the publishers to finish PoA or GoF and she hated that. Also she was very much involved in the filming of PS/SS and CoS, she got married, she's pregnant, she has a little girl, she wrote the Quidditch and Beasts books, she been promoting these books as they are for charity... She says that when she was half way through the book she had to rewrite everything because she realizaed there was a big plot hole, even took out a new character (Ron's female cousin). She's finished the book but is double checking all the details. These are very complicated books to write, to many details, clues and plots going on at the same time. Publishers said that it won't be released before June 2003 I am amazed at all she has been doing. I prefer to wait a bit more and receive a really good quality book. The plot thickens... Happy New Year!! Sharana From susannahlm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 18:20:22 2002 From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (susannahlm ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:20:22 -0000 Subject: TBAY/SHIP: Romance on the Big Bang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49025 "Well, let's try something a little different here," Cindy said. She extended her Big Paddle toward Derannimer, who flinched imperceptibly before grasping the massive hilt. ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> As the weather-polished wood of the heavy paddle hits Derannimer's hand, she visibly blanches. She considers emitting a high-pitched squawking noise, but decides that it wouldn't impress the Captain. Why in the world did Captain Cindy just hand her her Big Paddle? What in the world is a peaceable sort like herself supposed to *do* with the Big Paddle? Although. . . A strange sort of evil smirk spreads its unpleasant self over Derannimer's countenance. This is a very *big* Big Paddle. It can do a lot of damage. It might be interesting to try and hit someone with it. It *might* be interesting to try and hit someone with it. Power. It can do odd things. Dimly, Derannimer perceives a form standing in front of her. "Well, I've got to get back to my ship. Got to try and round up the darn crew. I swear, Derannimer, if you think *you're* going to be getting shore leave this. . . Derannimer? Hello?" The form is well within striking distance of the Big Paddle. It might be interesting to-- "SAILOR!" ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> ><))'> Derannimer whips her head up, clarity slapping back into her brain with the Captain's sharp voice. The smirk, which had reached quite troubling proportions, abrubtly vanishes. "Aah! Captain!" The Captain is looking at Derannimer in some concern. The girl had an awfully odd look on her face a minute ago. "Captain, please," Derannimer carefully holds the Paddle out to Cindy. "Please, I *really* think you better keep this. I *really* don't think I'm cut out to carry this thing around." "But--" "*Really.* I mean. . . *really.*" The Captain is somewhat confused--really, why wouldn't anyone want to carry the Big Paddle? Dead useful and all--but, recalling how really very odd Derannimer had looked, hefts her Big Paddle back out of Derannimer's hands anyway. "Oh, well," she says, shrugging, "I'll be getting on back to the ship, anyway." Derannimer watches her go for a minute, biting her lip. Maybe she should. . . she had been thinking about it before that Paddle incident. . . she didn't want to be hauled up for mutiny the very day she made crewman, but. . . "Captain!" she calls after Cindy. The Captain stops and turns around, to see Derannimer jogging towards her. She waits for the girl to catch up, then continues striding forward. Derannimer (still jogging slightly) falls into step with her. "Captain, there's. . . well, there's a problem." "What kind of a problem?" "Well. . . " Derannimer is really not sure how to say this. "Well, you see, I'm not a SYCOPHANT." Judging from the look on Cindy's face, comprehension has yet to dawn. "Um. . . fine. Should you be?" "No, I mean--what I mean is--well, unlike SYCOPHANTS, I'm not always particularly conflict-adverse." Cindy laughs heartily. "Good! A conflict-adverse crewmen is not always the best thing to have on a destroyer! So I don't think there's going to be a. . . "Oh," she says, suddenly wary. Derannimer is striding in an oddly determined way. Except she is jogging. Jogging in an oddly determined way. "Right then," says the Captain, and stops walking. "What's the problem?" Derannimer, grateful, stops as well. She draws herself up to her full height, which is not great, as she addresses the Captain. "Captain, you evaded a great many of my points back there." Derannimer suddenly understands what Elkins means when she refers to the "Cinister one." And here she'd always thought that was a joke. "What, *precisely,*" says the Captain in an unfriendly voice, "did you mean by *that.*" "Or perhaps you merely misunderstood me," adds Derannimer quickly. She may not be a conflict adverse SYCOPHANT, but she isn't exactly Tough and Steely either. There are limits to her boldness, and the look on the Captain's face is one of them. "Quite easy to misunderstand me, really, I'm still new here and I was quite likely unclear." "But for whatever reason, you *mangl*--you. . . didn't quite seem to address--what I meant about FITD." "Un-huh." says the Captain, a sneer playing about her face. "And what, pray tell, did I thusly leave thusly unaddressed? "I addressed every darn thing that *COULD* be addressed! Didn't I talk about that lousy 'Farmer in the Dell'?! Didn't I?! I mean, I *talked* about it! It's a *ship,* and I *talked about it!* Remember? I said that it was a load of sap! I mean, this is not supposed to be some sleazy romance novel. If you do this 'Farmer in the Dell' thing, you've got romance and kissing and flirting coming out of your ears. How are you going to sustain any interest in the war with all of these darn *mating rituals* going on? All of that sappy stuff will be sticking to the bottom of your shoes!" "I know you said that," protests Derannimer, seeing the Captain's grip tighten on her Paddle, and wondering why she is still standing here arguing. "That is *exactly* what you said! And it completely ignores everything that *I* said!" "Now look--" "The whole *point* of FITD is that it *cuts down* on mating rituals!" Derannimer continues recklessly. "The whole point of FITD--the *definition* of FITD--is that everybody's love is *unrequited.* UNREQUITED! Meaning that no one is going to be kissing anyone! I mean, for an example, under R/H, Ron can kiss Hermione. Under H/H, Harry can kiss Hermione. Under FITD, Ron sure can't, because Hermione *doesn't want him to,* and if he tries to without her wanting him to (which he better not) she will smack him upside the head! And Harry can't either, because he's got no interest in her!" "You're being sexist," objects Cindy. "And unduly optimistic. Harry might not try to kiss Hermione, but Hermione could still conceivably try to kiss him." "And if she does, you know as well as I do that Harry will turn vermillion, stutter, and duck behind a tapestry next time he sees her coming." "Yeah, but--" "Face it, Captain: unrequited love is a lot less irritating than requited love is. Unrequited love is sappy angst. Requited love--the lynchpin of most other shipping theories--is sappy *sap.*" "Yeah, but even the unrequited version is sappy. You sure you want to read a book in which all the major characters are teenagers writing little love notes to each other and exchanging promise rings?" Derannimer surprises herself, and stamps her foot. This may not be a particularly wise gesture; as she is stamping into sand, it is certainly not a particularly effective one. "What 'little love notes'?" she demands. "Just who is going to be writing love notes? Ron, who's bitter about the fact that he's *again* playing second fiddle to his best friend? Hermione, who's miffed that her idiot would-be-boyfriend is mooning from afar after a sixth-year Ravenclaw who he doesn't even know, and who he *never* had a chance with, and especially not Post-Diggory? Harry, who is so mooning from afar, and who is probably feeling horrificly guilty about Cedric every time he looks at Cho anyway? Cho, who's still sitting at the Ravenclaw table, tears silently streaming down her face? Ginny, who's hoopefully over that anyway? I mean, who exactly is passing notes here? "And who is 'exchanging promise rings'? It takes two people to 'exchange' anything. It takes *reciprocation.* Under FITD, no two people are going to be in a position to exchange anything, because no two people are reciprocating *anything.* "The other nice thing about FITD, besides its blessed lack of happy, giggling couples, is the fact that we might not see it all. At least not very blatantly. At least not at first. That is to say, since everybody is *unhappily* in love, everybody will be trying to act like there not in love. And since Harry is not the most observant guy on Earth, he might not notice about Ron, and he probably won't notice about Hermione. We might notice more than he does, admittedly; and the whole thing will obviously come out at some point--but it's not going to be as *blatant* as it is if the characters were happily in love. Successful love is *public*; unsuccessful love does its best to be *private.*" The Captain does not seem to be convinced by this argument. "Yeah, but. . . well, why do we have to have any ships at all?" Derannimer looks at her, somewhat incredulously. "Well, that might be nice, but. . . I mean Captain, we're not making a *wish list* here. We're trying to guess what's *going* to happen, not negotiating over what we'd *like* to happen." She continues, in a gentler voice. "I know you--and me too, maybe--would rather that there not be any of this gooey stuff, but honestly. After all those JKR interviews where she talks about increasing hormones, and the Yule Ball in GOF, and the fact that Ron obviously does crush on Hermione. . . I mean, do you think that's all just going to disappear in OOP? "No," she concludes, shaking her head sadly. "We're going to have romance. The most we can hope for is that it doesn't get Light and Fluffy. FITD, whatever its faults, is not Light and Fluffy." "The most we can hope for," counters Cindy, "is that the romance is confined to less important characters, and stays outside the Trio! Now, what about Hermione and Neville? That could be--what?" she asks, angrily, as Derannimer collapses to her knees in a fit of hopeless giggles. "What's wrong with Hermione and Neville?" "Captain, *Neville?* Poor little pudgy woobie *Neville?*" Derannimer manages to say this much, but then starts giggling again. "Well, Hermione might not see him that way!" Derannimer stops laughing, and looks the Captain squarely in the eye. "Captain, please. Hermione *pities* Neville. Hermione *condescends* to Neville. If you honestly consider that the basis for a healthy relationship, then you are welcome to it. I think it would be kind of ugly to watch, myself." She picks herself up and brushes sand off her knees. "Nope, I'm sticking with FITD. It has a complete *lack* of promise rings, it stays in the shadows, and it isn't, unlike your N/H, a relationship founded on that nasty old King Cophetua thing. "I also still think, by the way," she continues, as she and Cindy start slowly walking dockwards once more, "that it can. . . not *create*--the situation's been there for a while now--but contribute to quite a Bangy situation. The FecklessBetrayer!Ron part of my earlier analysis, which you also didn't address. "But I'm not going to try to prove a Bang in FITD. For now. Just a lack of promise rings. And a lack of Neville." The Captain and Derannimer have arrived at the dock now. Captain Cindy is seemingly still thinking about it. She goes off, with an occupied expression, to gather up crewmen, and Derannimer steps onto the stained, uneven wooden planks of the long dock. She starts her walk towards the ship anchored at the other end. The Big Bang Destroyer. Cool. She's a crewman. If, that is, she hasn't already lost her job for insubordination. She turns on the dock and stares pensively at the Captain's retreating figure. "Oh well," she says, to the seagulls and the salt spray. "At least I didn't hit her with that Paddle." Derannimer (who hopefully is still a crewman) From draco382 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 18:45:49 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382 ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:45:49 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasely's death ( WAS Re: Percy Weasley, weak link) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49026 -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jcminjapan " wrote: >I am myself debating on who will die > in the next book. Personally my choices are Hagrid or Mr. Weasely. > Both seem to fit into JKR`s description. For this post I will stick > with why I think it will be Mr. Weasely. This may create some waves for those in the Ron Weasely camp (of course, I too belong there much of the time :-) but I feel that in order for Ron to be actively involved in the war against Voldemort, he needs some sort of impetus. We know that Mr. Weasely is completely against Voldie and the Death Eaters, and loves Muggles. This would easily make him one of the first people to be killed for his beliefs. (as jcminjapan said earlier) What do we know about Ron Weasely? Well, he's courageous for one thing, and not afraid to stand up and fight for those he loves -- but his brand or style of bravery is perceived very differently from Harry's. Harry is the ultimate warrior prince -- he has the murder of his parents by his nemesis hanging over his head, and their deaths seem to have an impact on almost every event in his life. Harry MUST be brave; brave and strong like a valiant knight. Ron, however has had no heartbreaking event like that in his life. Sure, his main problem is being ignored, but his desire to "prove himself" is as strong as Harry's. Ron's major acts of courage have been discussed many times (the "Mudblood" scene, standing on a broken leg in front of Sirius Black, standing up to Snape after the teeth enlarging scene, etc..) and they all have to do with defending some person -- rarely ever himself. I have always felt that while Ron realizes the seriousness of the war with Voldemort, he just doesn't grasp the weight of it as well as Harry or the adults do. If Ron was to experience loss at the hands of V'mort, maybe this would be the trigger he needs to make him a truly useful weapon (his strategic abilites will surely be put to the test in the future, I believe). so...yes, I agree that Mr. Weasely is another prime candidate for the death in OOP my two cents, draco382 (who hopes she hasn't stepped on any toes in the process of writing this :-) From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Dec 31 18:53:48 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:53:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death In OotP/ Books 6 and 7 References: Message-ID: <010401c2b0fd$f4b5e110$19a2cdd1@RVotaw> No: HPFGUIDX 49027 "klingerji" wrote: > Has anyone considered that Dumbledore will be the next one to die? > In the end of GoF there was a lot of discussion about how tired he > looked and how old he appeared. Well, it's been considered a great deal, but I don't think it'll happen. For a number of reasons. First, Hogwarts will apparently be a "safehaven" as long as Dumbledore's around. I don't think we can lose that safehaven in book 5. End of book 6, beginning of book 7 possibly. But not this early. > He would obviously be Volermort's biggest threat and most likely to be > his first priority. I don't know. Every indication we have is that Voldemort never even went after Dumbledore, *because* he was his biggest threat. Like Voldemort planned to eliminate others (like the Potters) before working his way up to Dumbledore. > Also, it is my theory (although totally unsubstantiated) that JKR may > has withheld the release of the next book knowing that Richard Harris > had been sick and antcipating his death. I don't think so. For one thing, why? Dumbledore's already in PoA and GoF, so killing him off in OoP wouldn't affect the casting any. They'd still need another Dumbledore. And for that matter, Richard Harris was the only actor signed on for all seven. By his own account something he regretted doing (not liking being tied down) and had looked into getting out of it. Which makes me think he was either really needed for all seven, or JKR said he was so no one would think he wasn't. Which I kind of doubt. I mean, why bother? Just don't sign him ahead, most of the others weren't. Except for Robbie Coltrane being signed for five. Anyway, I think Dumbledore's a possibility, but I really, really don't think he'll die in OotP. While I'm on the topic of deaths (what a morbid topic!) I've been hypothesizing over who will die and when (yes, again!). Keep in mind I don't actually *want* any of these to die, but I figure by Book 6 there's got to be an all out slaughter, so somebody's bound to go. I also think it won't be that many students as long as Dumbledore's around, but parents and those who've already finished at Hogwarts. Book 5: Hagrid Dennis Creevey (maybe) Igor Karkaroff Book 6: Dennis Creevey (if he doesn't die in Book 5) Remus Lupin Fred Weasley (or George, but only one of them) Arthur Weasley Penelope Clearwater Draco Malfoy (or early book 7) Arabella Figg Peter Pettigrew Anybody who suddenly becomes very likeable (as Cedric Diggory did). A few various parents of students. Book 7: Lucius Malfoy various DE's More parents of students, cousins, etc. Mad Eye Moody (the real one) Mundungus Fletcher Molly Weasley Bill Weasley Ron Weasley Dumbledore Boy, I was a bit rough on the Weasleys there. Hopefully I've overestimated the death toll. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Tue Dec 31 19:28:41 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:28:41 -0000 Subject: the twins are two people (was: lion-eagle, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49028 Catlady wondered: > For that matter, if Fred and George had been able to put their > names into the Goblet of Fire, could it have chosen one of them > without the other as Champion? And then Corinth screamed in frustration: > No! No, no, no, no! This is off topic, but I must rant. Twins are > not one person! Of course the Goblet could have made a choice; they > are two completely different people. nd I hope to God the school > wouldn't make an exception and treat the twins as a single person. Heh. Now, you wouldn't be a twin yourself by any chance, would you, Corinth? ;-) But cheer up. Canon backs you up here 100%. Padma and Parvati are twins, and they were sorted into separate houses. Nor does anyone seem particularly surprised or stunned by this occurrence. So I don't think that we have to worry too much about Hogwarts (or magical artifacts like the Goblet and the Sorting Hat, for that matter) making unfair assumptions about twins or denying them recognition of their individuation. When it comes to Fred and George, they do seem to enjoy the game of speaking with one voice, probably both because (as you said) it facilitates their love of mischief and also because it gives them an edge in the power dynamics of their large family. But the one glimpse we see of their behavior when they do *not* have an audience shows quite clearly, I'd say, that "Gred and Forge" is largely act. In _GoF,_ we see them quarrelling over how to proceed with Ludo Bagman. Tellingly, they believe themselves to be unobserved at the time. The instant that they realize that they are not in fact alone, they revert to their usual public behavior, putting up a united front against Ron. > Give me some time to look through the books and I'll give > canon for the two different personalities. A number of people have noted differences between the twins here on the list in the past, and several months ago, Richelle embarked on a full catalogue on their canonical appearances for just this purpose, although IIRC, she only got through the first book. I don't have any message numbers here right now, but an archive search might yeild some interesting finds. IIRC, people usually find Fred to be the leader of the two: more aggressive and initiatory than George, but also rather meaner, more lacking in empathy. A couple of people have expressed concern for Fred, as they feel that if JKR ever decides to pull an "evil twin" plotline, Fred could prove vulnerable to temptation or corruption. Oh! But now I see that Scheherazade said the exact same thing. I should really get up to speed before I start firing off replies, shouldn't I? Please *do* post this to the list when you're done with it, Scheherazade! I know that many people would be interested in seeing it. Elkins who once promised a full break-down of Percy appearances...but then never delivered. Er...maybe in 2003? From danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 19:43:06 2002 From: danny_tenenbaum at yahoo.com (Danny Tenenbaum) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:43:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death In OotP/ Books 6 and 7 In-Reply-To: <010401c2b0fd$f4b5e110$19a2cdd1@RVotaw> Message-ID: <20021231194306.28439.qmail@web10308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49029 --- Richelle Votaw wrote: > "klingerji" wrote: > > > Book 5: > > Hagrid > Dennis Creevey (maybe) > Igor Karkaroff > > Book 6: > > Dennis Creevey (if he doesn't die in Book 5) > Remus Lupin > Fred Weasley (or George, but only one of them) > Arthur Weasley > Penelope Clearwater > Draco Malfoy (or early book 7) > Arabella Figg > Peter Pettigrew > Anybody who suddenly becomes very likeable (as > Cedric Diggory did). > A few various parents of students. > > Book 7: > > Lucius Malfoy > various DE's > More parents of students, cousins, etc. > Mad Eye Moody (the real one) > Mundungus Fletcher > Molly Weasley > Bill Weasley > Ron Weasley > Dumbledore > > Boy, I was a bit rough on the Weasleys there. > Hopefully I've overestimated the death toll. > > Richelle Well thats a lot of killing I must say and books 6 and 7 will be quite depressing. However I do see where you're coming from and when Prof. Trelawny made her prediction she did say Voldemort would return and cause more wrath than he had done before. It's just hard to imagine Molly, Bill, Ron, Moody (I think he'll be eccentric but nice), and Dumbeldore all in the same book. I mean imagine being a 7 year old and having nearly all the characters that have been nice to Harry die, one after the other. I mean with all those deaths, they all become kind of trivial when they are all packed together. Dumbeldore's death would need like 4-5 chapters, and Rons would need even more. Here are my predictions: Book 5: Hagrid Maxime Fleur Delacour Seamus big Crabbe big Goyle Macnair Book 6: Dumbeldore Fudge Snape Pettigrew Draco Malfoy and mom A couple other DEs Book 7: Voldemort Lucius Malfot All other DEs Ron Weasley Mr. Weasley Percy Weasley Lupin Mundungus Fletcher Still quite violent but I think that seems about right. Anyone else have predictions? -Danny __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From heidit at netbox.com Tue Dec 31 19:52:36 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:52:36 -0000 Subject: Draco-related issues (was Re: 2 nagging questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "blind_nil_date " wrote: > Part one I can see from where you are coming. Part 2? I think Draco > Malfoy has shown too much smugness and awareness to not contribute > in a real way to acts more terrible than simple annoyances. Look at > the way he was acting in the woods after the Quidditch match in GoF. > He seemed highly aware of who and what was going on and relishing > the moment. Relishing what moment? The moment of telling the Trio to get out of the way of the Death Eaters? Or the moment (which doesn't exist in canon at all) where he did something to put them in harm's way that night? I look at that way he was acting in the woords after the World Cup match and it seems very clear to me that he's highly aware that his parents are out engaging in Muggle-baiting, but if he were actually interested in playing unfair, he'd've done something - *anything* - to alert the Death Eaters to the trio's presence. heidi From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Dec 31 19:59:37 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:59:37 -0600 Subject: Book Review: The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter (long) Message-ID: <017e01c2b107$2614f3f0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 49031 Hi all -- I hope many of you will enjoy the following book review. I'm pleased to note that precious few of the issues touched on in these essays by scholars would be new to this group; we've discussed many of these issues and themes off-and-on for over three years now. The book will be of interest to many of you though, and it's definitely a great investment for the obsessed HP fans among us. Note: The one surprising thing about this collection of 16 essays is the scanty and superficial discussion of Snape. It's a very strange omission, judging from the level of discussions he's inspired among our members. The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon, edited by Lana Whited (University of Missouri Press 2003). Whited's work is a thought-provoking collection of essays and critiques of J.K. Rowling's highly successful and popular, yet frequently criticized, Harry Potter series. Whited, along with a number of the contributing authors, address the overall questions of: (a) are the Harry Potter novels, marketed primarily to children to date but highly successful with adult readers as well, worthy of critical study and acclaim, (b) are they destined to be classics or are they merely a passing popular phenomenon, and (c) perhaps most importantly for this particular audience, is there any merit to charges by critics such as William Safire that the HP books are a waste of adult reading time? Although it will make this review lengthier than might be customary, I've decided to give comments on each individual article included within the collection. 1. "Harry Potter and the Secret Password: Finding our Way in the Magical Genre" by Amanda Cockrell. Cockrell argues that HP is successful largely because of Rowling's humor and ambiguous and multi-dimensional characters. She compares the books to some literary antecedents and concludes that Rowling is writing a story about a young boy's journey into selfhood and identity. She too takes issue with the criticisms of Safire, Bloom and other critics that the series is not worth adult attention, and notes that as the characters age, the series becomes even more complex and adult. 2. "The Education of a Wizard: Harry Potter and his Predecessors" by Pat Pinsent Pinsent compares HP with the works by Ursula Le Guin, Jill Murphy, Diana Wynne Jones, Anthony Horowitz and Roald Dahl. While she concludes that Rowling may be consciously or unconsciously melding elements from these and other works into her novels, she has certainly taken a fresh approach to both the fantasy and school story genres. 3. "In Medias Res: Harry Potter as Hero-in-Progress" by Mary Pharr - Pharr compares Harry as hero with other heroic literary figures: Gilgamesh, King Arthur, Clark Kent and Luke Skywalker. She views the series as a bildungsroman, a hero's journey and spends time examining the role each principal character plays in Harry's development (the Potters as the foundation, the Dursleys as the counterpoint, Dumbledore as mentor and guardian, Sirius as the family tie and Ron and Hermione as friends). Pharr believes the HP books are novels with much to offer both adult and child readers and is critical of the New York Times decision to relegate the HP books to their newly-created childrens' bestseller lists. Emphasizing Harry as a very human and touching hero, Pharr concludes that Rowling's works have much to teach us all about moral action and choices made through exercise of free will. 4. "Of Magicals and Muggles: Reversals and Revulsions at Hogwarts" by Jann Lacoss - Lacoss posits the wizarding world as a folk group with its own set of folklore. She argues that each year at Hogwarts represents a rite of passage toward membership in the adult folk group of wizarding society. Much of this article is devoted to an in-depth examination of Rowling's effective use of "reversals" in the HP books: things that are turned around so that they seem to do the opposite of what they are intended to do. 5. "Harry Potter: Fairy Tale Prince, Real Boy and Archetypal Hero" by M. Katherine Grimes - In this article, Grimes makes an effective case for HP as a truly cross-generational series: Harry is a fairy tale prince to young readers, a "real boy" to adolescent fans and an archetypal hero to adult readers. Grimes examines each one in turn, using Bettelheim's criteria in her fairy tale analysis. She compares/contrasts HP with various other classic "realistic" novels read by adolescents and adults ("Oliver Twist," "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Huckleberry Finn," "Jane Eyre," "Emma" and others). By reading "realistic" literature, teenagers learn that they can survive tribulations that life throws them and still succeed. Grimes also makes note of the extraordinary popular appeal of HP with adults. In her archetypal hero analysis, Grimes finds that HP meets 9 of the 10 elements of Otto Rank's criteria for an archetypal hero. She analyzes each of Harry's 6 father figures in turn, noting that archetypal heroes typically must reconcile with or exact vengeance against their father or father figure. Grimes then turns to a discussion of the themes of birth and rebirth in the series. She concludes with an overarching question: will Rowling follow Rank's formula and end the series happily with Harry as triumphant hero or the Lord Raglan model and end it with the death of our hero? 6. "Harry Potter and the Extraordinariness of the Ordinary" by Roni Natov - Natov examines Harry as "Every Man." She argues that the magical setting of the HP novels casts the awe and wonder of ordinary life into greater clarity. 7. "Harry Potter, Tom Brown, and the British School Story: Lost in Transit?" by David K. Steege - This article compares the contemporary HP novels with the 19th-century classic boarding school books by Thomas Hughes, "Tom Brown's School Days." Steege believes that the HP series is an example of the post-Empire boarding school genre. 8. "Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of Authority" by Farah Mendlesohn - Mendlesohn takes a close look at the structure of authority within the universe of the HP books, concluding that Rowling advocates a traditional and conservative hierarchial system that maintains the status quo. She paints Harry as a passive hero who is successful largely due to "inherited" talents and assistance from others, a "gentleman scholar" (a star on the playing field and passably bright). She argues that the Sorting Hat reinforces the destinarian nature of elitist Hogwarts and is not at all about personal choices. Mendlesohn also takes a dim view of wizarding society on the whole. As one example, given that Hogsmeade is the only non-Muggle village in all of the UK, she believes that the only logical explanation for the wizarding world's general ignorance of Muggle life is that that the wizards employ segregationist and imperialist hierarchies in daily life. While this piece is without question the most critical of the HP series in Whited's book, it is thought-provoking and worthy of further discussion. I do note, however, that many of Mendlesohn's arguments are undermined by her misinterpretations of the text or reliance on factual inaccuracies. 9. "What Would Harry Do? J.K. Rowling and Lawrence Kohlberg's Theories of Moral Development" by Lana Whited - Whited evaluates the HP characters within the framework of Lawrence Kohlberg 's scheme of moral maturation (two stages at each of the three levels of Preconventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional for a total of 6 possible stages of development). People operating at the Post-Conventional level recognize that laws and rules can be broken for higher principles or moral laws. Whited believes that both Dumbledore and Sirius Black operate at this level and that Sirius Black may even arguably reach Stage 6 reasoning during the pivotal scene in the Shrieking Shack of PoA. She finds that both Harry and Hermione (by year 4) are operating comfortably at the Post-Conventional level. She points out that while children often regress to earlier stages of development within Kohlberg's schematics, it is rare for regressions to occur once an individual is operating at the Stage 5 level. Whited concludes that the HP series serves as an excellent means of encouraging children and adolescents to begin thinking at the post-conventional level. 10. "Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender" by Eliza T. Dresang - Dresang begins her critique of the treatment of gender in the HP series by tracing the various "Hermiones" of mythology and literature, concluding that all of Hermione Granger's literary antecedents are strong, intellectual and resilient individuals. She uses the post-modernist approach of evaluating Rowling's female characters as they *were* written (rather than how they *might* have been written). Dresang concludes that Rowling's descriptive adjectives and verbs often place Hermione at odds with her core character (the whining and shrieking doesn't mesh at all with what we the readers know about Hermione's strength). This use of stereotypical descriptive language is perhaps Rowling's greatest weakness with respect to her female characters. Nevertheless, Dresang is overall very optimistic about Hermione's self-determination and role in the series. Dresang notes that Hermione has played a decisive role in all the key events of each novel in the series and she sticks to her principles. She does, however, believe that Hermione and McGonagall are the only truly developed female characters thus far. Dresang takes issue with critics Mendlesohn (see above) and Schoefer for their appraisals of Minerva McGonagall, noting that McGonagall is depicted as wise, fair, capable of disregarding rules for higher principles and empowered within the otherwise largely male hierarchy of Hogwarts. Dresang believes Rowling has depicted a realistic view of gender that mirrors that of the current muggle world, though she reserves some criticism for Rowling' s desciptive language as applied to the female characters. 11. "Locating Harry Potter in the 'Boy's Book' Market" by Terri Doughty - Doughty compares HP to other young adult fiction that appeals to males. She sees the series as becoming darker and more complex, with GoF marking the beginning of Harry's passage into adulthood. She concludes that the fantasy genre, represented by novels such as HP, may be more popular than other "realistic" problem-based books available to adolescent boys. 12. "You say 'Jelly.' I Say 'Jell-O?' Harry Potter and the Transfiguration of Language" by Philip Nel - Nel evaluates the "translation" of British English to American English in both HP and other books. He argues that in many cases, the *meaning* was changed and that the assertion by Scholastic's Levine (and confirmed by Rowling) that the intent was to ensure that American children had the same reading experience as British children is flawed. Nel asserts that Scholastic's versions of the first 3 books in the series are an example of cultural imperialism. He wasn't able to discern any more than we have whether the significantly fewer changes to Scholastic's GoF version was the result of lack of time or a dawning realization by Scholastic that the public preferred that the texts not be "Americanized." He does concede that in some instances, the changes clarified the text and even anticipated reader questions to great effect (and he argues that these changes should be adopted into later Bloomsbury printings). However, he overall believes that the "Americanization" of the Scholastic versions was misguided. Nel is particularly critical of context changes (bogey changed to booger), equivalent word changes (motorbike changed to motorcycle) and onomatopoetic word changes (splutter changed to sputter). Nel cautions that with such intricately-plotted novels, all the details count and that seemingly minor changes may have greater ramifications in future novels than the editors realize. 13. "Harry Potter and the Tower of Babel: Translating the Magic" by Nancy K. Jentsch - Jentsch examines the challenges to translating the HP books into different languages. She notes that class issues are an important issue in the books and present particular challenges for translators. Jentsch evaluates the French, German and Spanish translations fairly extensively. 14. "Specters of Thatcherism: Contemporary British Culture in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series," by Karin E. Westman Westman takes issue with the prevalent pre-GoF notion that the HP books were a nostalgic throw-back, Edwardian. She believes that the books are meant to mirror post-Thatcher Britain. Contrary to popular opinion, Westman asserts that the first 3 books clearly laid the foundation for many of the racial and class tensions readily apparent in GoF. Westman makes a strong case for the inclusion of the long QWC sequence in GoF thematically. She believes that the conflicting ideas about muggle-wizard relations apparent in the wizarding world parallel the racially-motivated conflicts in contemporary Britain. Westman argues that Rowling's "sharpest critique of racial prejudice and materialist politics appears through Ron Weasley." She contends that while the House Elves will suggest the slavery of American past to American readers, the House Elves will suggest class issues in contemporary Britian to British readers. Westman concludes that Rowling is not writing a *parallel* universe so much as one that mirrors the problems facing our own muggle world. 15. "Harry Potter and the Technology of Magic" by Elizabeth Teare - Teare evaluates the HP books in terms of the "commodity culture" of modern children, noting that the wizarding world is just as commercialized and obsessed with technologies and material possessions as we muggles. 16. "Apprentice Wizards Welcome: Fan Communities and the Culture of Harry Potter" by Rebecca Sutherland Borah - Borah asserts that the HP fandom is more diverse than any other fandom. She notes that the books have a large (possibly even approaching a majority) following among adult readers. She examines the controversy between Warner Bros. and fan website owners in some detail. Borah also comments on the question of what makes some people fans as opposed to just readers or members of an audience, concluding that fans are people who read, re-read and interpret the source texts many times over (seeking out other fans to discuss and reshape their readings). Unfortunately, Borah doesn't seem to have found our group (or any of the thriving adult fandom sites for that matter), so her evaluation of our fandom is focused mainly based on message boards frequented by child and adolescent fans. ******** While we welcome discussion of the substantive issues raised by this review or the articles/essays included in the Ivory Tower book on the main list, please take any questions about acquiring a copy, borrowing a copy, pricing, etc. to our OT-Chatter list. Hope you enjoyed this - I'm planning to write similar reviews of other HP secondary sources in the coming month. Penny From heidit at netbox.com Tue Dec 31 20:02:42 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:02:42 -0000 Subject: Percy - a little brainwashed? (was Re: Percy- a little odd?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49032 In the recent discussion of Percy and his fit into the Weasley family, I haven't noticed any mention of my "pet" theory (and I call it that both because it's one of my pet topics of discussion, and because it involves a pet). In Message 46566 and again at 46576 and 46597, I discussed the role that Scabbers might've played in the Weasley household, first as Percy's pet and then as Ron's. From the time Percy was 6, Wormtail had access to Percy in a house - and then a school - full of wands. Isn't it possible that he engaged in some discussions (as Percy's imaginary friend who visited him in the night or in his dreams) or outright brainwashing of Percy, and also of Ron? And then, through much of Book 4, Wormtail had constant access to Percy through the letters that were purportedly written by Mr Crouch - it's possible he reinforced any programming he had previously put into place either through suggestions, through magic, or through simple discussions and instructions about things Percy should read. Now, I don't actually think Percy is outright evil or brainwashed - I actually think that there was some reason why Wormtail turned his attentions to Ron - perhaps Percy was too old to be truly succeptable, or perhaps at Hogwarts, there was some block to Wormtail's influence? But it is possible that the weak link isn't any flaw in Percy - but rather, a flaw caused by the pet his parents let him have when he was sixish. On that note... HAPPY NEW YEAR, all! Heidi Follow me to FictionAlley Fanfic of all shapes, sizes and SHIPs http://www.fictionalley.org From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 20:09:05 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:09:05 -0000 Subject: Do Moody's Eye and Dumbledore Really See thru Cloaks? (WAS: Invisibility Cloaks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49033 Susan Atherton asked: > So do the same old laws of physics that bind the rest of us bind > someone wearing a Cloak? If they can be felt and touched, they > obviously don't disappear, they are just concealed. So do they cast > a shadow? And if, as I suspect, they do, why doesn't anyone notice?! Now me: While canon doesn't reference whether or not a shadow is seen, I would suspect it's not, since there's no visible body to cast one. However, in Ch. 21 of PoA, Harry "watched the grass flatten in patches all around the cabin and heard three pairs of feet retreating." So the Cloak doesn't stop the sound or impression of your footsteps. So, presumably, if someone was looking closely, they might notice such things, but since there's no visual clue that a person is there, it's probably very easily overlooked (Karkaroff smashes right into Harry while Harry is wearing the Cloak in GoF and still doesn't find him). bboy_mn wrote: > As far as Moodies eye, it's possible that Moodies eye picks up > infrared light spectrum allowing him to see heat, and among other > things, do a reasonably good job of seeing in the dark. So when he > sees through Harry cloak, all he may really be seeing is heat > patterns. An alternate, is that the eye enhances Moody's psychic > abilities, so that it is in his minds eye, or inner eye, his > preception rather than in his visual eye that he sees things. Now me: I think it's fairly clear in canon that Moody's eye can not only see through solid objects as well as Invisibility Cloaks, but see what lies beneath in detail. After Draco is turned into a ferret in GoF, Moody's eye sees out of the back of his head to tell Crabbe not to pick him up. Moody's eye sees through Lavender Brown's desk to tell her to put her horoscope away. In Ch. 19 of GoF, Moody spots Harry in the Cloak in the Three Broomsticks and says "Nice Cloak, Potter." When Fake!Moody finds Harry caught in the trick stair, "Moody's lopsided gash of a moth opened in surprise. For a few seconds, he and Harry stared straight into each other's eyes." These references suggest to me that Moody's eye is seeing more than heat patterns - he's seeing exactly what's underneath that Cloak. And I don't think we need to struggle to find a rational explanation for this - Moody's eye is magical, so it can see through solid objects, out of the back of his head, and through Invisibility Cloaks. bboy_mn again: > So, in summary, as with Moody, Dumbledore may not necessarily see > Harry or see through the cloak, as much as he merely preceives their > presents and general location. Clues could come from heat, sound, > slight visual distortion, gravity, foot prints on the floor, there > could be lots of tiny little clues that are missed by most people. Me again: I think we still have a lot to learn about Dumbledore's abilities. In Ch. 12 of PS/SS, Dumbledore tells Harry "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." If Dumbledore is able to make himself invisible, perhaps he also has the ability to see through Invisibility Cloaks. We're definitely given that suggestion in Ch. 14 of CoS, when "For a second, Harry was almost sure Dumbledore's eyes flickered towards the corner where he and Ron stood hidden" and when Dumbledore gives the hint about help being given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it and are loyal to him. Or it could be as mundane as Dumbledore knowing that Harry has the Cloak, and knowing that Harry would probably be visiting Hagrid at that time. But the Dumbledore Can See Through Cloaks theory is much more interesting! ~Phyllis From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 20:36:44 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:36:44 -0000 Subject: Sucking & Blowing of Souls (was: Crouch in 9) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49034 Both Elkins and Catlady have discussed the possibily of Crouch Jr somehow through some miraculous process (bones of his father or whatever) being revived, being OK again. That makes me wonder, if a Dementor can 'suck' out your soul, would that also imply that he can 'blow' it back? Could Voldemort break open Azkaban, find out what happened to Barty Jr, and order the Dementor who took it, to give Bary Jr his soul back? Perhaps, once a soul is lost it's lost forever, then again.... I do tend to agree with Elkins that most secondary villains are a one shot deal. They are part of the story they are in, and are never heard from again. But I find the concept of returning someones soul very intriguing. Perhaps the return of Barty's soul could be the setup for Sirius losing his soul and later in the story having it returned. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Suddenly off on a new subject.... The new place in the wizard's world that Harry will visit. Could it be Godric's Hollow, Egypt, the Ministry of Magic, or .... perhaps Azkaban? What if, in an effort to clear Sirius's name, the Ministry agrees to a new impartial and fair trial during which they will weigh the original evidence and the new evidence, and make a new ruling on Sirius's guilt or innocents. But, the only way the Ministry will consider it, is if Sirius turns himself in as a show of good faith. Which means that until the end of the trial, Sirius is back in Azkaban. OR... it could be a sham of a trial and Sirius, despite four witnesses and Dumblefore's support, is convict, or worse yet, they change their mind about the trial and send him to Azakaban ,and maybe even to the Dementor's kiss. I see a shame of a trial, execution of the kiss set for a later date. Dumbledore, Harry, and Company must break into Azkaban which is now thought to be under the assumed influence of Voldemort, and break Sirius out. Hey... it's just a thought. bboy_mn From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 20:58:38 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:58:38 -0000 Subject: Book Review: The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: <017e01c2b107$2614f3f0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49035 In her terrific review of The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter, Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > 8. "Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of > Authority" by Farah Mendlesohn - She paints Harry as a > passive hero who is successful largely due to "inherited" talents > and assistance from others, a "gentleman scholar" (a star on the > playing field and passably bright). She argues that the Sorting > Hat reinforces the destinarian nature of elitist Hogwarts and is > not at all about personal choices. Now me: Oh, my. She really has missed the boat, hasn't she! She must have skipped over Dumbledore's "choices make us what we are" speech at the end of CoS. How unfortunate. While Harry definitely has quite a bit of inherited talent, it's what he chooses to do with that talent that really makes the series so wonderful to me. And while he does receive quite a bit of assistance from others, the assistance is designed to enable him to make the most of his talents and thereby live out his destiny - which, IMO, is to overthrow Voldemort once and for all. Penny's review again: > 10. "Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender" by Eliza T. > Dresang - Dresang concludes that Rowling's descriptive > adjectives and verbs often place Hermione at odds with her core > character (the whining and shrieking doesn't mesh at all with what > we the readers know about Hermione's strength). Me again: While Hermione does occasionally giggle somewhat out of character, I don't see that this detracts from her strengths. It only happens occasionally, and it's a good reminder that she's still a teenage girl, despite how grown-up she usually acts. Penny's review again: > 12."You say 'Jelly.' I Say 'Jell-O?' Harry Potter and the > Transfiguration of Language" by Philip Nel - However, he > overall believes that the "Americanization" of the Scholastic > versions was misguided. Nel cautions that with such > intricately-plotted novels, all the details count and that > seemingly minor changes may have greater ramifications in > future novels than the editors realize. Me again: How true, how true! I'm so glad to see this issue addressed. Scholastic's changing "curse" to "murder" in Ch. 1 of GoF completely changed the meaning and has led to a lot of confusion among American readers. And why add Dobby cleaning Lucius Malfoy's shoes at the end of CoS in the American versions but not in the UK versions? These types of changes are much more than clarifications to ensure that American readers understand British expressions. Penny's review again: > 14."Specters of Thatcherism: Contemporary British Culture in > J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series," by Karin E. Westman > Westman argues that Rowling's "sharpest critique of racial > prejudice and materialist politics appears through Ron Weasley." Me again: While Ron does have the most violent (literally and figuratively!) reaction to Draco's use of the term "mud-blood" in CoS, I really see Hermione as championing the anti-prejudice movement with her S.P.E.W. campaign in GoF. Of note is that Ron has no patience for Hermione's house-elf liberation front, and gladly exploits the house-elves for food from the kitchens. Penny again: > Hope you enjoyed this - I'm planning to write similar reviews of > other HP secondary sources in the coming month. Me again: I loved it - thanks so much, Penny! ~Phyllis From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 21:28:02 2002 From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (erisedstraeh2002 ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:28:02 -0000 Subject: Kiss Loses Soul Forever and the Return of Crouch Sr. (WAS: Soul Sucking/Blowing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49036 bboy_mn wrote: > That makes me wonder, if a Dementor can 'suck' out your soul, would > that also imply that he can 'blow' it back? Could Voldemort break > open Azkaban, find out what happened to Barty Jr, and order the > Dementor who took it, to give Bary Jr his soul back? > Perhaps, once a soul is lost it's lost forever, then again.... Now me: In Ch. 12 of PoA, when Lupin describes the Dementor's Kiss, he tells Harry "There's no chance at all of recovery...And your soul is gone for ever...lost." So I think Crouch Jr. is out of luck (and deservedly so, IMO!). However, I wonder about the potential restoration of Crouch *Sr.'s* body. Crouch Jr. transfigured his father's body into a bone, which he buried in front of Hagrid's hut. Hermione tells us in Ch. 6 of CoS that mandrake juice "is used to return people who have been transfigured or cursed to their original state." So could mandrake juice work on Crouch Sr.'s bone? Could you pour mandrake juice on the bone and return his body to its original state? Would its original state be alive or dead? Even if he doesn't come back to life, the restoration of his body would at least provide corroborating evidence for what Crouch Jr. said under the veritaserum for non-believers such as Fudge. ~Phyllis From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 21:14:40 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:14:40 -0000 Subject: New place Harry visits (was Sucking & Blowing souls) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49037 bboy_mn wrote: > The new place in the wizard's world that Harry will visit. Could > it be Godric's Hollow, Egypt, the Ministry of Magic, or .... > perhaps Azkaban? > > What if, in an effort to clear Sirius's name, the Ministry agrees > to a new impartial and fair trial during which they will weigh the > original evidence and the new evidence, and make a new ruling on > Sirius's guilt or innocents. But, the only way the Ministry will > consider it, is if Sirius turns himself in as a show of good > faith. Which means that until the end of the trial, Sirius is back > in Azkaban. OR... it could be a sham of a trial and Sirius, > despite four witnesses and Dumblefore's support, is convict, or > worse yet, they change their mind about the trial and send him to > Azakaban ,and maybe even to the Dementor's kiss. > > I see a shame of a trial, execution of the kiss set for a later > date. Dumbledore, Harry, and Company must break into Azkaban which > is now thought to be under the assumed influence of Voldemort, and > break Sirius out. I agree with you that Godric's Hollow or Azkaban are places Harry could go to. Egypt I don't think so. JKR used Egypt so that Scabbers could appear on the newspaper which gave Sirius enough strength to escape Azkaban. I personally think that there should be a really good reason to force Harry to go to the MoM, I think he wouldn't want to go there just to visit Mr. Weasley. JKR said that in Book 5 we will know more about Lily and James lives, so I think it is very likely that Harry will go to Godric's Hollow. As for Azkaban I agree that the most probable way for Harry to go there would be to rescue someone. The Dementors surely will turn to Voldemort's side so anyone could be caught unfairly and end up in Azkaban, without the need of a trial. I don't think the Ministry will want to give Sirius a fair trial. He was about to be kissed by a Dementor, even though Harry, Ron and Hermione insisted he was innocent. Snape made Fudge believe that the kids had been brainwashed. Even Dumbledore knew there was no way Fudge would believe the kids and the only way he saw to save Sirius's life was for Harry and Hermione to use the Time Turner, with all the risks using the TT brings (we've talked about that a lot), not to mention that if they got caught they were to be sent to Azkaban. H&H risked a lot saving Sirius. Worse than that: Dumbledore and Fudge have now parted ways. There is no reason why the MoM would offer Sirius a fair trial, and Sirius, Dumbledore and the kids know that, so if it would happen, they would get suspicious and wouldn't agree to it. The other place I find highly likely Harry may go is St. Mungo's Hospital. We know Neville's parents are there, that Lucius Malfoy donates a lot of money to it, that someone in there irresponsibly told Rita Skeeter that Harry was "loosing it" (in GoF). I feel that Lucius Malfoy has a lot of power in there and that maybe he is influencing the "treatment" the Longbottoms receive there (just a guess). But nobody realizes it, or nobody has proof, or Malfoy threatens those who do realize it. It seems that Neville will play an important role in one of the next books. I think Harry and Neville will help each other out at some point. Anyway, HAPPY NEW YEAR!! Sharana From bobafett at harbornet.com Tue Dec 31 20:21:34 2002 From: bobafett at harbornet.com (BoBaFeTT) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:21:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] any post explaining the cloak or any other item like it References: Message-ID: <000c01c2b10a$3f8279e0$e88402c7@home> No: HPFGUIDX 49038 I've seen a lot of posts asking and discussing invisibility cloaks and so on and so forth. Well, I have the only answer you need ;) It's magic, silly! BoBaFeTT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethlenda at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 21:37:44 2002 From: kethlenda at yahoo.com (Kelly L. ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:37:44 -0000 Subject: Mandrake and Polyjuice Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erisedstraeh2002 " wrote: However, I wonder about the potential restoration of Crouch *Sr.'s* > body. Crouch Jr. transfigured his father's body into a bone, which > he buried in front of Hagrid's hut. Hermione tells us in Ch. 6 of > CoS that mandrake juice "is used to return people who have been > transfigured or cursed to their original state." So could mandrake > juice work on Crouch Sr.'s bone? Could you pour mandrake juice on > the bone and return his body to its original state? Would its > original state be alive or dead? Even if he doesn't come back to > life, the restoration of his body would at least provide > corroborating evidence for what Crouch Jr. said under the veritaserum > for non-believers such as Fudge. > > ~Phyllis A very good question. I've also wondered about Polyjuice Potion--if you die while Polyjuiced, like Mrs. Crouch, do you revert to your original form after an hour passes, or do you remain in the assumed form forever? If Mrs. Crouch was exhumed at Azkaban, would they find her body or a copy of her son's? Kelly L. From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 31 21:55:08 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:55:08 -0800 Subject: Hermione/Book review, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Review: The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73259686991.20021231135508@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 49040 Hi, Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 12:58:38 PM, erisedstraeh2002 wrote: >> 10. "Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender" by Eliza T. >> Dresang - Dresang concludes that Rowling's descriptive >> adjectives and verbs often place Hermione at odds with her core >> character (the whining and shrieking doesn't mesh at all with what >> we the readers know about Hermione's strength). > Me again: > While Hermione does occasionally giggle somewhat out of character, I > don't see that this detracts from her strengths. It only happens > occasionally, and it's a good reminder that she's still a teenage > girl, despite how grown-up she usually acts. I'm not sure if the above refers to her occasional giggling or more to Hermione's tendency to lose her cool when under pressure, or maybe even her general tone of voice. Hermione does have many strengths and great qualities, but she's also hiding insecurities (imo) and isn't always as "nice" as many want to see her. She still nags quite a bit and doesn't always take emotional issues into account (unless they are her own). And she's very, very stubborn . But how is this at odds with her strengths? I don't understand this claim. Can't a person have strengths *and* flaws? Why can't someone who is very bright, loves learning and helping out others, also be whiny and get scared in certain situations? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Dec 31 22:04:47 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:04:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death In OotP/ Books 6 and 7/Voldemort's Fate? Message-ID: <74.288cb635.2b436e7f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 49041 In a message dated 12/31/02 1:55:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, rvotaw at i-55.com writes: > Book 5: > > Hagrid > Dennis Creevey (maybe) > Igor Karkaroff > > Book 6: > > Dennis Creevey (if he doesn't die in Book 5) > Remus Lupin > Fred Weasley (or George, but only one of them) > Arthur Weasley > Penelope Clearwater > Draco Malfoy (or early book 7) > Arabella Figg > Peter Pettigrew > Anybody who suddenly becomes very likeable (as Cedric Diggory did). > A few various parents of students. > > Book 7: > > Lucius Malfoy > various DE's > More parents of students, cousins, etc. > Mad Eye Moody (the real one) > Mundungus Fletcher > Molly Weasley > Bill Weasley > Ron Weasley > Dumbledore > Where's Hermione? I believe that the only way Harry will have the ... *searches for word* ... inspiration! to kill the Dark Lord will be if he's alone. It would teach a powerful lesson, one that I believe in wholeheartedly: "In the end, you're all you've got. That's the point." (Yeah Buffy!) I also don't think Draco will die. Which in itself is another lesson: evil never dies. Draco will be the only "big bad" left. Of course, this is going on the idea that Harry will defeat Voldemort. *thinks* That might not be the case. Who says Harry's going to defeat him? We all *assume* that that will happen...but there's no canon is there? I know, I know, it's a theory. But it might not be correct. Any thoughts as to what will happen to LV if Harry doesn't smite him? ~*~*~Oryomai~*~*~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sharana.geo at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 21:40:25 2002 From: sharana.geo at yahoo.com (sharana.geo ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:40:25 -0000 Subject: Book Review: The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49042 Phyllis wrote: > In her terrific review of The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter, Penny > Linsenmayer wrote: > >> 8. "Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of >> Authority" by Farah Mendlesohn - She paints Harry as a >> passive hero who is successful largely due to "inherited" >> talents and assistance from others, a "gentleman scholar" (a star >> on the playing field and passably bright). She argues that the >> Sorting Hat reinforces the destinarian nature of elitist Hogwarts >> and is not at all about personal choices. > > Now me: > > Oh, my. She really has missed the boat, hasn't she! She must > have skipped over Dumbledore's "choices make us what we are" > speech at the end of CoS. How unfortunate. > > While Harry definitely has quite a bit of inherited talent, it's > what he chooses to do with that talent that really makes the > series so wonderful to me. And while he does receive quite a bit > of assistance from others, the assistance is designed to enable > him to make the most of his talents and thereby live out his > destiny - which, IMO, is to overthrow Voldemort once and for all. I'd like to add something else to what Phyllis said. I believe JKR wants to reinforce the idea that no matter how talented and famous you are, you cannot face the world alone. This message is transmitted mainly through 2 characters: Harry and Dumbledore. "Dumbledore is probably the greatest wizard of our time" as it appears on the Chocolate-Frog card. He is truly powerful as a wizard, but most importantly he has people who are faithful to him, spies who gather information about the bad guys, the old crowd, etc. Without them Dumbledore couldn't do all the good he does. Dumbledore chooses to use his talents for the good cause, but he also treats people with respect and as equals. He doesn't discriminate poor, rich, Squibs, Muggles, giants, half-giants, house- elves, gnomes, goblins, werewolves... He earns their trust and respect. I think Harry is showing the same kind of behavior, his friends are Ron (comes from a poor family), Hermione (not pure blood), Dobby (house-elf), Lupin (werewolf), Neville... He instantly disliked Draco (before the Sorting Hat ceremony in Book 1). Harry doesn't surround himself by those who have money or power. He's not interested in that. Harry couldn't have passed the Second Task in GoF without Dobby's help, and Harry is completely aware of it. HAPPY NEW YEAR!! Sharana From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Dec 31 22:20:08 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:20:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death In OotP/ Books 6 and 7/Voldemort's Fate? In-Reply-To: <74.288cb635.2b436e7f@aol.com> References: <74.288cb635.2b436e7f@aol.com> Message-ID: <14261187231.20021231142008@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 49043 Hi, Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 2:04:47 PM, SnapesSlytherin wrote: > It would teach a powerful lesson, one that I believe in > wholeheartedly: "In the end, you're all you've got. That's the point." Hm, I'm kind of hoping there will be a different lesson. Something along the lines: Sometimes a team can achieve, what one alone cannot (no matter how talented that one may be). Maybe Harry will learn that it's okay to ask for help (or accept it, if it's offered), that it's okay to not be able to do everything alone, that it helps to combine your great talents with other peoples'. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue Dec 31 22:27:32 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:27:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death In OotP/ Books 6 and 7/Voldemort's Fate? In-Reply-To: <74.288cb635.2b436e7f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49044 Wow..It's been awhile since I've had time to post. Ah well, I figure with three weeks off for christmas holidays I can do alot of damage... Don't know whose list this is, sorry... > Book 5: > > Hagrid > Dennis Creevey (maybe) > Igor Karkaroff > > Book 6: > > Dennis Creevey (if he doesn't die in Book 5) > Remus Lupin > Fred Weasley (or George, but only one of them) > Arthur Weasley > Penelope Clearwater > Draco Malfoy (or early book 7) > Arabella Figg > Peter Pettigrew > Anybody who suddenly becomes very likeable (as Cedric Diggory did). > A few various parents of students. > > Book 7: > > Lucius Malfoy > various DE's > More parents of students, cousins, etc. > Mad Eye Moody (the real one) > Mundungus Fletcher > Molly Weasley > Bill Weasley > Ron Weasley > Dumbledore Oryomai replied: >Where's Hermione? I believe that the only way Harry will have the ... >*searches for word* ... inspiration! to kill the Dark Lord will be if he's >alone. It would teach a powerful lesson, one that I believe in >wholeheartedly: "In the end, you're all you've got. That's the point." (Yeah >Buffy!) Hmm..I really don't see Harry needing both his best friends dead to defeat Voldie. I mean, he has certainly demonstrated the ability to fight evil with and without them, so it's not a case of Ron and Hermione holding him back. I do agree that it would be very...dramatically sound, if JKR were to kill someone very close to Harry in order to send him into a rage (blah blah blah...whether this would be seen as postive or, like his rage at Sirius, negative, I'm not sure). You know, make it personal (he seems to have very little rage at Voldie for his parents - at least nothing like he had for Sirius). However, in order to do that she only really needs to kill one person, and it doesn't have to be either Ron or Hermione. Killing Hagrid, for instance, would definitely be motivation enough to set Harry on the warpath. On the other hand, she's sort of already played that card (with Sirius), so I'm not sure she'd do it again. And I don't believe she'll kill off both Ron and Hermione. It's just not really her style - she can be dark - but she's rarely gratuitously cruel. >I also don't think Draco will die. Which in itself is another >lesson: evil never dies. Draco will be the only "big bad" left. >Of course, this is going on the idea that Harry will defeat Voldemort. >*thinks* That might not be the case. Who says Harry's going to defeat him? >We all *assume* that that will happen...but there's no canon is there? I >know, I know, it's a theory. But it might not be correct. Any thoughts as >to what will happen to LV if Harry doesn't smite him? Hmm...it does seem likely that someone will do away with the old LV by the end of Book Seven, as otherwise there really wouldn't be any closure, and I don't really think Jo's plan is to leave us with a angsty, depressing Voldie-has-taken-over-the-world-and-everyone-has-been-killed-or-worse scenario. The darkest she'll probably get is letting Harry die, which would really be a shame - poor kid. I also believe that Azkaban as we know it (inhumane, dementors, etc.) will be gone by the end of the series, which doesn't leave much of a way of *imprisoning* LV. I don't think a prison with plain wizard guards could hold him -- although, now that I think about it, the dementors probably wouldn't even *try* to hold him... Anyway, I'll quit rambling now. Sorry if none of this makes sense, I've been doing college applications nonstop for five days -- brain's a little shot. Laura (who isn't even going to bother reading back over what she's written - bad girl.) From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue Dec 31 22:35:49 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:35:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death In OotP/ Books 6 and 7/Voldemort's Fate? In-Reply-To: <14261187231.20021231142008@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49045 Oryomai: > It would teach a powerful lesson, one that I believe in > wholeheartedly: "In the end, you're all you've got. That's the point." Susanne: >Hm, I'm kind of hoping there will be a different lesson. >Something along the lines: Sometimes a team can achieve, >what one alone cannot (no matter how talented that one may >be). *thinks this is a much better lesson, and one that Harry actually needs to learn* He pretty much has the lone hero mindset down pat, IMO. What he really needs to learn is how to reach out to others when he is in need (emotionally, as well as in life-threatening situations). Admittedly, it's perfectly understandble why he doesn't do this (he was pretty much on his own for the first eleven years of his life), but it's still something *I* feel he needs to come to grips with and fix. Don't know if JKR will actually let him, though...she seems a victim of the lone warrior outlook as well. (Which is interesting, because - like Harry - she's survived trying times very much on her own..being a single mom, etc.) Laura From abigailnus at yahoo.com Tue Dec 31 22:43:01 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus ) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:43:01 -0000 Subject: Mr. Weasely's death ( WAS Re: Percy Weasley, weak link) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 49046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "draco382 " wrote: > -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jcminjapan " > wrote: > >I am myself debating on who will die > > in the next book. Personally my choices are Hagrid or Mr. > Weasely. > > Both seem to fit into JKR`s description. For this post I will > stick > > with why I think it will be Mr. Weasely. > > This may create some waves for those in the Ron Weasely camp (of > course, I too belong there much of the time :-) but I feel that in > order for Ron to be actively involved in the war against Voldemort, > he needs some sort of impetus. You think Ron needs a reason to join the fight against Voldemort? How about these reasons: 1. His very best friend is #1 on Voldemort's hit list and was nearly killed by him three times. 2. His other very best friend, and possibly the girl he has a crush on, is in the ethnic group that Voldemort endangers the most. 3. Last year, Voldemort murdered a schoolfellow of his. 4. A supporter of Voldemort manipulated his sister into furthering Voldy's goals and nearly got her killed. 5. His father is very fond of Muggles and has obviously espoused in his family values that strongly oppose the actions of Dark Wizards. Frankly, I think Ron has enough reasons to join the fight. In fact, I suspect that in his own mind, he has already joined it. After all, he puts himself and his family in danger just by associating with Harry. Abigail